Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6252)	9/30/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Are you implying that the current campaign laws favor Republicans? I don't even understand the exact insidious implication. Or are you just trying to draw attention away from the DNC's belated "discovery" that they had indeed accepted 100's of thousands of dollars from Chinese Nationals? Uh, Dwight? I didn't say anything about laws favoring Republicans, although I've certainly heard recent proposals that do (outlaw union PAC contributions, but not from corporate PACs. Another reading of Or maybe just "reform" that attacked traditional Democratic sources, and left Republicans alone. As if the balance didn't already tip far the other way. is that politcal contributions overall are already heavily weighted toward the Repubclican side. Do you dispute that? Cheers, Dan.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6252)	9/30/1998 10:48:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

>>Not that I will defend Clinton, but foreign money is nothing new. George Bush didn't need Chinese contributions to know when to kowtow. His experience as ambassador to Beijing served him well.<< So if understand your above quote, you are implying that although Bush didn't take foreign money from China, his experience as an ambassador was somehow the same as taking money? You are beginning to sound downright paranoid in your scramble to say something critical. Sorry, I'd originally had an "of course" before "Bush didn't" above, but I overuse that phrase. Cutting it out changed the tone, I wasn't meaning to imply what you say. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush got Chinese money, but he probably didn't need it. All I meant is that policy wise, the results were much the same. Clinton's money, Bush having gone native as Ambassador, end results are pretty similar. On China policy, I'd say in general that there's a lot of pressure from many sides to kowtow/suck up. Much of it comes from American business, which thinks it's going to make a killing there. Personally, I find this improbable. The overseas Chinese are the entrepreneuirial class of Asia, and there are plenty of culturally and politically well connected Chinese businessmen in Hong Kong waiting to take charge. China sees us as a market, we see them as a market, but all you have to do is look at the trade balance and its trend over the past few years to see whose businessmen have a more realistic vision there. I don't like our China policy, but it looks pretty bipartisan to me. There will always be complaints from the side out of power, but push comes to shove, human rights gets at best lip service from both sides. Business rules. Cheers, Dan.