Hillary Clinton speaks out against Harvey Weinstein, says she is "shocked and appalled"


What steps would you suggest?


Steps? You understand that’s a very irritating open-ended question. Like saying “put-up or shut-up.”

First of all, I’m not her, so I have no idea what mental contortions she would have to go through to take “steps.”

Second of all, if Charles Schumer can respond almost a week prior to Hillary Clinton and yet have received half of what Clinton got in donations, then I’d say that Clinton’s ratio of concern to money is out-of-wack. See the link:


Look, there are ways to measure charitable metrics. There are ways to measure-- more efficiently-- charitable risk. If an individual donor is giving you money, and you know he’s giving other people money, and you can measure this as a circle of influence, then it is likely that you can corroborate this with personal behavior.

You don’t HAVE to accept money. That’s not discriminatory. Furthermore, if you develop a risk-reward ratio and an ROI, then you can determine how closely you should pursue preemptive distancing of yourself from allegations of misbehavior that might come back to bite you.

Because we have this taboo about politicians accepting money while appearing not to be bribed, we have few methods for actually weeding out corruption without creating political leverage for opposing candidates. Technology already tracks social behavior, the big-data to track political connections is not impossible, and the level of scrutiny can be increased for political candidates. The current self-policing doesn’t work. That’s why we still have minimal levels of Federal election law.

So here’s what I can think of off the top of my head …

You set up legally separate non-profit reporting hotlines that allow reports of corruption or abuse. Give every political donor a randomized reference number that they can use to call in allegations against other campaign donors should they so choose, so the money is tracked to their behavior. You require detailed statistical records that can be analyzed for donor behavioral patterns. Right now, politicians can squeeze risky donors for more money. Statistics can keep a record-of-influence from both donor and candidate.

You set up non-profits to collate problems reported by members of the public, kind of like class-action lawfirms, and then you use this as a system of PACs reporting to PACs about donor allegations. You create a monetary system of checks-and-balances, because as we know there are two ways to vote: as a citizen, and in proportion to influence (similar to other systems of proportional representation). In other words, you either have to make the traceable web of connections more-finely woven and therefore easier to get caught within, or you make political affiliations purposely blind for everyone.

This system is possible-- not nice, but possible-- and the question that should be asked is who should it not be nice for? Politicians who have a public duty to accountability, and therefore have a greater ethical burden to vet their affiliations? Those that wish to influence politicians? General public protections under law?

Thirdly, why is it my responsibility to provide suggestions as if I have some sort of greater burden-of-proof for pointing out problems? I’m sure Mr. Weinstein’s colleagues were told the same thing over many years. I’m saying HRC looks like an ineffective politician. Her inefficiencies are obviously her problem. If that sounds defensive, then sorry, but I also voted for her …

Does this give me any greater credibility in your eyes?


Um, that’s a lot of fire for what was a genuine question.

I would suggest if the question is irritating, that’s more on your perception than anything else.

If you consider it open-ended and hard to answer, maybe that’s an indication that simply saying “she should take steps” is not in fact very useful.

As to why it should be your responsibility to provide suggestions - it’s not so much a question of responsibility but given that you are saying people should take steps, I think it is on you to actually think about what that could mean instead of just being another person saying “something must be done”.

Thank you for thinking about possible solutions. I appreciate it. I think your proposal (and I appreciate its an off the top of your head suggestion more or less) has the same problem the current system (or lack thereof) does in that it relies entirely on hearsay and gossip.

How is anyone to know whether allegations are true? Should they care or is there some level of smoke at which politicians should be required to say there is too big a risk of fire?

I think you are suggesting the latter. In my view that is what politicians already do even if not using fancy metrics.

They judge whether the heat for taking money from person X is worth the money based on gossip, rumour, their gut instincts and whatever their party organisation knows or can find out.

If your suggestion is that there should be a fixed measurable publicly known point at which a person becomes persona non grata as a political donor, who sets that?

Or have I completely misunderstood?


thank you, well said.


There is nothing simple about that aspersion.

I’m saying, specifically, that you’re simply wasting your breath using a rapist for your own personal/political ends, in some ways clouding justice due him. Good luck with that. It’s clearly the worst when people objectify others, uh huh, do go on…


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.