jack_package_200
Banned
Pretty sure OP was a Buster during the primary season.
Half of Clinton's nongovernment meetings at State were with donors
- Thread starter remist
- Start date
- Status
Pretty sure OP was a Buster during the primary season.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
what are we trying to stick on her this week
I would agree that this isn't evidence of any type of quid pro quo or pay to play, but I do think it goes against the spirit of the deal she had with Obama and what she told the public. That she was going to build a wall between herself and the foundation. It's indicative of poor judgement. A more competent statesman/woman would have known to avoid these potential conflicts of interest.
I wasn't. And that is the second time you've tried to attack me in bad faith in this thread without any good reason.
Not even donated to her "campaign" (did she even have an active campaign organization while serving in an appointed office?), but to the Clinton Foundation.
Unless we are expecting one year as SoS to be drastically different than the next, they are likely relatively stable from year to year.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Yeah, I'd have preferred if she just blew off that charity that works to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, too.
I would assume that the number of meetings varies wildly from year to year.
She spent slightly more than 50% of her 'nongovernment' meetings with super famous donors! OMG, straight to jail.
Like, show us some actual corruption for once. Not these "there might be something there, but I have no proof, so let me just insinuate that it could be bad for a clickbait headline!"
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
if Kasich was the GOP choice, her terribleness would pop brighter. But Republican base is poisoned beyond the beyond so....
She's not a great public speaker
Her campaign(s) are overly controlled
She's doesnt come off genuine(most of the time)
She has alot of baggage(some are bullshit, some are real)
Her husband is not that great of an asset anymore
And she's likable "enough"
Orbis Tabula
Member
Ah, so that's how statistics works? Just assuming uniformity?
Or she could have left it to someone else to handle like she said she would.
Hell, if we would assume that, then it is possible the meetings amounted to more than half in the unexamined years.
Ask any Ohioan democrat about Kasich's qualifications. If he had been the nominee the media would have torn him apart for his misdeeds as governor including leading the fight to suppress voters.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Some other Secretary of State?
sturgboski
Member
Its funny too because Kasich has actually passed some terrible laws that contradict his big selling point during the campaign.
Sure....then that would mean the statistics were still skewed by only looking at half the time.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
She would be facing actual backlash were she not facing Fuckface McFuckfacebutt.
That said, this is a non-issue.
captmcblack
Member
Clinton and company getting in bed with Big Charity and Big AIDS Prevention. Crooked!
But if they had the entire data (which i'm sure they did), why only cherry-pick a cross-section of years in the first place? I mean, she's SoS for only 8 years right, it's not like they had some hundred years of data to pore over. There's enough wiggle room there to say whatever you want.
And I do get what you are saying, sampling is there in statistics for a reason, but only when populations are too large to measure outright, and when there is sampling when there doesn't have to be it begs the question as to why.
You might be right. As she was closing in on a Presidential bid and winding down her State duties it probably would change.
Actual backlash? For what?
You know what this reminds me of?
That guy in high school who calls the girl who slept with a few guys an irredeemable slut. No, worse, the girl who is BELIEVED to have slept with many guys, but has little proof of anything. But she's hanging around them, so that must mean she's up to some dirty business, right?
She's not acting any way unusual for any politician, but people suspect the worst.
It'd be weird if she shunned the people who are literally giving her money out of a belief that she acts in their best interests.
That guy in high school who calls the girl who slept with a few guys an irredeemable slut. No, worse, the girl who is BELIEVED to have slept with many guys, but has little proof of anything. But she's hanging around them, so that must mean she's up to some dirty business, right?
She's not acting any way unusual for any politician, but people suspect the worst.
It'd be weird if she shunned the people who are literally giving her money out of a belief that she acts in their best interests.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Would she? She won her primary pretty easily, despite all the junk they tried throwing at her.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I don't know if This comment is serious but the Clinton Foundation is not a political organization
Uh, then you didn't read the article either. She had meetings with people who donated to her foundation, not her.
But she did. Hillary did not operate the charity herself. Meeting with donors or, in the case of some of the people mentioned in the article, being in the same room donors does not break the spirit the deal she made with Obama, and is really a ridiculous thing to expect of her. She's a popular figure and government official, imagine how difficult it would be for her to do her job (or any politician) if she couldn't meet or be associated with someone who donated to a charity she was associated with.
hammysaurusrex
Member
It would certainly benefit the article if the authors did more to establish their criteria for why they picked a certain stretch of time and only looked at a certain subset of meetings, even just an honest "that's the only data we had access to" - at the moment the Clinton campaign has a reasonable criticism that it seems entirely arbitrary to produce a sexy "half" number for a headline.
It seems like it doesn't change much. If you're in the camp (composed of the usual suspects) that believes there's a certain threshold of circumstantial evidence at which you can place someone in front of a firing squad, then this adds more. If you're still waiting for the actual evidence after 30+ years, you're still waiting.
It seems like it doesn't change much. If you're in the camp (composed of the usual suspects) that believes there's a certain threshold of circumstantial evidence at which you can place someone in front of a firing squad, then this adds more. If you're still waiting for the actual evidence after 30+ years, you're still waiting.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
passed terrible laws? so did Gov. Bush, and Reagan .... any GOP Gov.....they still got elected 4 Times. Thats not the point.
Half of campaigning is not about actual policies,its about how you sell em, and whether you can keep the heat off you and on your opponent for the longest.
Kasich would not only get most right wingers, but would actually compete and very possibly win the middle vs Hillary.
If she just met with all of them in the course of state department busines, then you would be right. But for example it's reported that S. Daniel Abraham, a fundraising bundler for the Clinton foundation was the one who planned some of these meetings. That's not a firewall between the foundation and Hillary.
That "bundler" founded a non-profit advocacy group for Middle Eastern peace that meets with countries all throughout the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Daniel_Abraham_Center_for_Middle_East_Peace
User 463088
Banned
Shhh. That's not good for the narrative.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
This really is going to be a landslide victory, isn't it.
hammysaurusrex
Member
Yes, a moderate Republican would have given more trouble for Hillary. However, the Republicans abandoned an agenda aimed at moderates this election cycle.
I can see the argument that she's fortunate to be running against a lunatic, but I have a hard time calling it "lucky" - remember, it came down to Trump vs. Cruz, not Trump vs. moderate.
I can see the argument that she's fortunate to be running against a lunatic, but I have a hard time calling it "lucky" - remember, it came down to Trump vs. Cruz, not Trump vs. moderate.
And what's the difference? That's a charity that clearly she's associated with. I still don't see issues with especially when there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. The only thing people reporting on this can say is that it "looks" bad, but can't tell you what she did wrong.
Doing a bit of research before posting/making threads would really help you out.
When this is the newest in a string of 'saw headline posted instantly, because it sounds negative for hillary but if you read more, its really 'itsnothing.gif'' ?
You bet its apart of it now.
googleplex
Member
Backlash against what exactly?
PeakPointMatrix
Member
lemme guess, it feels like you can't have a beer with her either
But he's a known Anti-Clinton person so of course people know he has an agenda against her.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Uhh, is that Julian Assange in your avatar...?
It's team alucard. If someone doesn't like Hillary, they like them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll