Half of Clinton's nongovernment meetings at State were with donors

Status
Not open for further replies.
I read the article.

There's nothing here that indicts Hillary of corruption honestly. I would like to see any proof of wrongdoing but these donor meetings seem ultimately good when it comes to benefitting people.
 
B-Dubs said:
We're literally posting this stuff on a forum that's run by a guy that got a photo-op with a sitting president by donating money.



The fact you didn't actually seem to read the entire article before posting it? Also that you left out all of the important bits in your quote.
Click to expand...

I knew that Obama was in the pocket of Big Gaming Forum.
 
Cqk_3CXVUAEV1dO.jpg
Click to expand...
.
 
The operating word here is Non-Government. Even if she met two friends and 2 donors at the state, that would still be half. I'd like to see the total meetings number, would be a more interesting breadkdown.
 
And of course this is not news. Why the hell would it be? What was Bernie talking about all that time during the debates in regards to corporate influence and corruption through money in politics? Were people just putting their hands in their ears?

I'm not happy being validated, this shit needs to stop and government itself and how it handles money and lobbying with powerful outside forces needs to change.
 
Inuhanyou said:
And of course this is not news. Why the hell would it be? What was Bernie talking about all that time during the debates in regards to corporate influence and corruption through money in politics? Were people just putting their hands in their ears?
Click to expand...

Soooo... You didn't read the article?
 
Is it bad that I'm okay with politicians meeting with their supporters? As long as knowledge of those meetings are publicly available anyway. Like if I ran a nonprofit seeking to implement social equality into a candidate's platform then I'd hope they'd meet with me after giving them a large check in support of their campaign so that I could share my organization's values with them.
 
Inuhanyou said:
And of course this is not news. Why the hell would it be? What was Bernie talking about all that time during the debates in regards to corporate influence and corruption through money in politics? Were people just putting their hands in their ears?

I'm not happy being validated, this shit needs to stop and government itself and how it handles money and lobbying with powerful outside forces needs to change.
Click to expand...

I guess it's good that you're not being validated by this story then? Cause, none of that has anything to do with this, nor did Bernie ever attack the Clinton Global Initiative, because he knows all the good they do around the world.
 
B-Dubs said:
The fact you didn't actually seem to read the entire article before posting it? Also that you left out all of the important bits in your quote.
Click to expand...
jack_package_200 said:
Well if you had read the entire article including the tidbit posted above and chose not to include it in your op, then it seems you were being intentionally misleading
Click to expand...
None of that is true. I read the full article and I didn't make any effort to leave anything out. I just posted the first two paragraphs of the article where he summarizes the content before he get's into details. I'll edit in the offending part for people who actually didn't read the article.
 
NoblesseOblige said:
Is it bad that I'm okay with politicians meeting with their supporters? As long as knowledge of those meetings are publicly available anyway. Like if I ran a nonprofit seeking to implement social equality into a candidate's platform then I'd hope they'd meet with me after giving them a large check in support of their campaign so that I could share my organization's values with them.
Click to expand...

Well I hate it! I'm sick of the moneyed powers trying to influence our government with their anti-gender-based violence agenda!
 
A salty inuhanyou post coupled with a team alucard appearance due to a thread started be remist is all I wanted today when I woke up this morning.
 
adam387 said:
I guess it's good that you're not being validated by this story then? Cause, none of that has anything to do with this, nor did Bernie ever attack the Clinton Global Initiative, because he knows all the good they do around the world.
Click to expand...

Dude its Inuhanyou. His hard-on for negative Hillary news knows no bounds.
 
Inuhanyou said:
And of course this is not news. Why the hell would it be? What was Bernie talking about all that time during the debates in regards to corporate influence and corruption through money in politics? Were people just putting their hands in their ears?

I'm not happy being validated, this shit needs to stop and government itself and how it handles money and lobbying with powerful outside forces needs to change.
Click to expand...

There's something admirable about the zeal with which you consistently attack your own credibility.
 
remist said:
None of that is true. I read the full article and I didn't make any effort to leave anything out. I just posted the first two paragraphs of the article where he summarizes the content before he get's into details. I'll edit in the offending part for people who actually didn't read the article.
Click to expand...

So you don't even acknowledge that you left out kind of a crucial paragraph?

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
Click to expand...
 
You hear that aspiring politicians? Don't do charity work, and if you do, don't take money from anyone who'd want to chat after you take office.
 
Actually, the AP seems to be arguing this an optics issue typical for the Clintons.

DESPITE ALL THE GOOD THEY'RE DOING. UGH.
 
The story describes an "extraordinary proportion" but doesn't really establish what an "ordinary" proportion *should* be. Also a bunch of people who donated to the foundation would've deserved meeting time even if they hadn't done so. Can't we reframe this as "important and influential people generally regard the Clinton Foundation as a worthwhile cause, and often donate money to it"?
 
People keep screaming about there being smoke, but every time I look and read the article, it's a giant nothing.
 
Sometimes I wonder if at any point in the past dozen years, she had time to do her actual jobs.

Like, it's all been an endless succession of campaigning, fundraising, and ultimately positioning herself for higher and higher office.
 
I mean, let's assume you're stupid rich, and you're kind enough to decide to devote your time and money to work on a human rights issue in another country half the world away. Of course you're going to 1) Give money to charities with a history of caring about these types of issues, and 2) Try to get meetings with high ranking government officials who can help you make inroads in these foreign countries. Otherwise, I probably won't get a lot done.
 
B-Dubs said:
So you don't even acknowledge that you left out kind of a crucial paragraph?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't leave anything out. I just didn't post that particular paragraph. The OP is to give people short blurb of the article so they can decide if they are interested enough to read the whole thing and participate in discussion. I just assumed people would read the article. Anyway I've edited in now to satisfy your complaints.
 
Brakke said:
The story describes an "extraordinary proportion" but doesn't really establish what an "ordinary" proportion *should* be. Also a bunch of people who donated to the foundation would've deserved meeting time even if they hadn't done so. Can't we reframe this as "important and influential people generally regard the Clinton Foundation as a worthwhile cause, and often donate money to it"?
Click to expand...
Seriously. I couldn't even make it through the article. This is such a stretch to make it into a bigger story than it is. Wake me up when there is a real conflict of interest or actual proof of wrongdoing
 
I suppose if you put enough bullshit out there, people will buy a certain percentage of it...the shotgun approach to politics.

Is the OP going to say anything about people's concerns with the thread now? Or is it just another case of "oh, this is very important, I'm just saying", never to be seen again until the next poorly written article comes out of somewhere with enough credibility that NeoGAF doesn't just shit on it immediately.
 
DarkKyo said:
She's pretty bad. She seems likable enough but damn she dirty.
Click to expand...

And this is based on what? Her family operating an A-rated charity that has raised millions for women and children around the globe?

Being considered one of the best Secretaries of State our country has had with an approval rating higher than the president himself when she held the job?

A widely popular New York senator?

Yeah... So dirty.
 
DarkKyo said:
She's pretty bad. She seems likable enough but damn she dirty.
Click to expand...

How is she dirty. Give me a specific illegal thing she has done to be considered "Crpoked" Not conspiracy theories. Not right wing hit pieces.

She, along with Bill, are some of the most investigated people in history because the GOP has a hate boner a mile long for them. And, yet, somehow, after Whitewater, Vince Foster, Benghazi, the fucking White House Christmas cards....nothing ever seems to come from it except the vast Right Wing conspiracy gets to waste tax payer dollars.
 
devilhawk said:
Their response is so cringeworthy: "They didn't include other years!!!"

That's not how statistics works. That's not how it works at all haha.
Click to expand...

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state
Click to expand...

and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.
Click to expand...

Doesn't include half of the term when she was secretary of state. Are you sure how statistics work?
 
Man some people are desperate for some negative Hillary press. Those Trump down polls must be giving them ulcers.
 
Guevara said:
Sometimes I wonder if at any point in the past dozen years, she had time to do her actual jobs.

Like, it's all been an endless succession of campaigning, fundraising, and ultimately positioning herself for higher and higher office.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty crazy takeaway. Most people who've worked with her in the Senate and at State describe her as unusually well-informed and prepared. She has a strong reputation for putting the work in. If you wanna come at her, this isn't the angle to take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Online Piracy's Great Comeback (a thorough look at the state of streaming)
Opinion 
27
820
Coconutt replied
Nearly half my body weight gone. 💪
2
66
4K
Solarstrike replied
  • Poll
Can we have a premium GAF without the BS intrusive (take over half the screen) ads?
2
51
2K
Werewolf Jones replied
Has GAF already healed to pre-exodus state?
33
2K
mopspear replied
What if the Seinfeld characters were the “heroes” of Lord of the Rings?
9
1K
Avid Reading Horse replied
Top Bottom