Support NeoGAF

[Tal Shiar Agent]

To be exact

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20352

This summerizes it fairly well


http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/l...-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/

Don't put links in spoiler tags and don't post a link to Wikileaks without posting a summary in a quote. Not everyone wants to give that arm of the Kremlin any clicks.



And ah yes, the Daily Caller. That wonderful rag run by a former Cheney advisor. Totally don't have an agenda. /s

 

[eBay Huckster]

I mean that negative posts about Clinton are met with bad faith invective targeted at the poster and not the content by a large contingent of Hillary supporters on GAF.

well, no, they're generally met with anywhere from one to five posts pointing out that "the content" is fucking nothing and then five more pages of people like you deflecting to Clinton GAF Is Being Really Mean

so, like, maybe take a look at your own posts if you're gonna complain about "bad faith" from anyone but the Cerium tier

 

[Monocle]

Fuck, the hive.

I'm out yall. Have fun.

We have conveyed your sentiment to the swarm. Click click click.

I must have confused you with Valhelm or someone. Sorry!

It's chill.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

To be exact

Spoiler

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20352

This summerizes it fairly well

Spoiler

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/l...-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/

You're clearly confusing DNC with Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

 

[xxracerxx]

To be exact

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20352

This email reads like a bunch of Democrats asking other Democrats if there are any Democrats that they know if they would like to be considered for a position on a committee.

 

[Zackat]

Don't put links in spoiler tags and don't post a link to Wikileaks without posting a summary in a quote. Not everyone wants to give that arm of the Kremlin any clicks.



And ah yes, the Daily Caller. That wonderful rag run by a former Cheney advisor. Totally don't have an agenda. /s

and by a Junior too, of barely a few months lol.


Some of these juniors lately are quite interesting.

 

[Y2Kev]

Those emails don't have anything to do with Hillary? I'm confused.

 

[Fat4all]

Those emails don't have anything to do with Hillary? I'm confused.

the DNC was the Clinton Foundation the whole time

it was just wearing a mask, like old man Johnson

 

[MIMIC]

You mean if you actually read the article, like you usually dont, you would see that almost all the meetingss were the state department refusing them and telling them to go elsewhere?

God, did YOU even read the article? In it they talk about a Bangladesh economist who was trying to get Clinton's help after the Bangladesh government was looking into his bank.

Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.

And she eventually warned the government against undermining the bank.

Doesn't exactly scream "go away," now does it?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

and by a Junior too, of barely a few months lol.


Some of these juniors lately are quite interesting.

Ever since the alt-right took over 4chan and Reddit they've been trying to infiltrate other forums as well.

 

[pigeon]

There are posters in this thread that have attacked my motivations on false assumptions, accused me of purposely misleading people just because I didn't quote the right paragraph's in the OP and falsely claiming I was a Bernie or Buster. It's not imagined

You are a Bernie or Buster. You're like the picture in the dictionary next to Bernie or Buster!

 

[DrROBschiz]

Sorry but isnt this the case with all current politicians in the system and considered the norm?

Didnt Jon Oliver do an entire segment on how broken this is and how so many politicians have to spends large amounts of their time raising money?

Its fucked up but scapegoating Hillary alone seems to be missing the point

 

[Valhelm]

That's... Not checkered. They should refuse money from some countries but not others? Clinton openly called out Saudi Arabia for being lax with its citizen's private donations to terrorist organization, which is more extreme than any other candidate's position, including Bernie's.

Also from Politifact
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/
Saudi Arabia did not donate to the Clinton Foundation under Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State. Clinton also vowed not to accept foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation if she's elected president.

I don't think a humanitarian organization should take money off of a rentier state which is hardly more ethical than ISIS. Because I doubt these Saudi donations were in good faith, the acceptance of these funds is morally questionable.

Your own link mentions that the Saudi government began donating to the Foundation once again, after Hillary left her office as Secretary of State. To me, this is a pretty clear indication of Saudi aims to influence American policy. Because Saudi Arabia is a theocratic, fascistic state whose ties to the US are concerning, I think the Foundation shouldn't have accepted this money.

 

[pigeon]

There's little room for evidence of quid-pro-quo because Hillary Clinton hasn't been elected yet. How could she reward her donors when Obama is still president?

I mean, with her powers as Secretary of State? Isn't that the whole theory behind this thread?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Here you go

Even if there's not yet been any proven appointment of donors, the DNC ought to be called out for this blatant quid-pro-quo plan

I guess the DNC should be called out, but I don't see how this is Clinton's fault like the poster was suggesting. It would technically be an Obama problem, but he never ended up appointing any of those people. :s

I don't think a humanitarian organization should take money off of a rentier state which is hardly more ethical than ISIS. Because I doubt these Saudi donations were in good faith, the acceptance of these funds is morally questionable.

Your own link mentions that the Saudi government began donating to the Foundation once again, after Hillary left her office as Secretary of State. To me, this is a pretty clear indication of Saudi aims to influence American policy. Because Saudi Arabia is a theocratic, fascistic state whose ties to the US are concerning, I think the Foundation shouldn't have accepted this money.

But Hillary wasn't a part of government anymore after 2013? Saudi Arabia had zero influence over the American government through the Clinton foundation. And she won't take any money from them after 2016 either. To me, she really did do her best to avoid conflict of interest.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's sad that only thing anyone can actually use against Hillary are imagined scandals(this one against a charity that has raised billions no less) and some e-mails, nothing of substance about the campaign she's currently running nor her policies. She's also running against demonstrably one of the worst candidates imaginable(and demonstrably many, many awful supporters), and yet it all comes back around to a emails and a charity(and Benghazi in some circles, of course)

It's amazing how out of whack the priorities of so many actually are.

 

[jack_package_200]

It's sad that only thing anyone can actually use against Hillary are imagined scandals(this one against a charity that has raised billions no less) and some e-mails, nothing of substance about the campaign she's currently running nor her policies. She's also running against demonstrably one of the worst candidates imaginable(and demonstrably many, many awful supporters), and yet it all comes back around to a emails and a charity(and Benghazi in some circles, of course)

It's amazing how out of whack the priorities of so many actually are.

Its like they (Republicans) don't want to discuss policy.

 

[remist]

You are a Bernie or Buster. You're like the picture in the dictionary next to Bernie or Buster!

I'm not a Bernie supporter at all. I disagree with him on a lot of his populist tendencies from trade protectionism to his isolationism. I'm just a not voting for Hillaryer.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Its like they (Republicans) don't want to discuss policy.

It's not even just Republicans, we still have the Bernie or bust type still roaming around peddling this stuff, and to what ends exactly?

 

[Valhelm]

I mean, with her powers as Secretary of State? Isn't that the whole theory behind this thread?

Hillary's been the presumed Democratic nominee for at least four years. I find it much more likely that she was planning on giving ambassadorships or even more powerful positions to big-dollar donors, especially because the aforementioned DNC email suggests that quid-pro-quo plans were being actively discussed.

Obviously she would not be the first president to reward supporters in nepotistic ways, but that doesn't make quid-pro-quo any more ethical.

I'm not a Bernie supporter at all. I disagree with him on a lot of his populist tendencies from trade protectionism to his isolationism. I'm just a not voting for Hillaryer.

I hope you don't live in a swing state.

But Hillary wasn't a part of government anymore after 2013? Saudi Arabia had zero influence over the American government through the Clinton foundation. And she won't take any money from them after 2016 either. To me, she really did do her best to avoid conflict of interest.

It's naive to think that the 2014 donations were made in good faith. The Saudi government was well aware that she would likely be the next president, and was hoping to get in her good graces.

 

[Vilix]

Now it all makes sense.

 

[Hazmat]

Hillary's been the presumed Democratic nominee for at least four years. I find it much more likely that she was planning on giving ambassadorships or even more powerful positions to big-dollar donors, especially because the aforementioned DNC email suggests that quid-pro-quo plans were being actively discussed.

Obviously she would not be the first president to reward supporters in nepotistic ways, but that doesn't make quid-pro-quo any more ethical.

So, you're angry that there's the potential for quid-pro-quo corruption? Are we only supposed to elect someone president who has never had anyone be nice to them ever?

 

[Valhelm]

So, you're angry that there's the potential for quid-pro-quo corruption? Are we only supposed to elect someone president who has never had anyone be nice to them ever?

I'd rather that campaign finance regulations prevent any individual governments or plutocrats from giving enough money to influence policy.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Hillary's been the presumed Democratic nominee for at least four years. I find it much more likely that she was planning on giving ambassadorships or even more powerful positions to big-dollar donors, especially because the aforementioned DNC email suggests that quid-pro-quo plans were being actively discussed.

Obviously she would not be the first president to reward supporters in nepotistic ways, but that doesn't make quid-pro-quo any more ethical.



I hope you don't live in a swing state.



It's naive to think that the 2014 donations were made in good faith. The Saudi government was well aware that she would likely be the next president, and was hoping to get in her good graces.

It doesn't sound like it worked.

 

[Eidan]

Yeah fuck opinions, this should a fact based forum where we all agree on things unequivocally proven.

Truthiness is alive and well.

 

[Valhelm]

It doesn't sound like it worked.

Great to hear that Clinton is acknowledging the source of Wahhabism. But I'll wait and see if she follows through as president, and stops distances our country from the Saudi regime.

 

[royalan]

I'd rather that campaign finance regulations prevent any individual governments or plutocrats from giving enough money to influence policy.

In what way is the Clinton Foundation a part of the Clinton campaign fundraising apparatus.

I mean... this is beyond grasping at this point...

 

[Eidan]

Sorry but isnt this the case with all current politicians in the system and considered the norm?

Didnt Jon Oliver do an entire segment on how broken this is and how so many politicians have to spends large amounts of their time raising money?

Its fucked up but scapegoating Hillary alone seems to be missing the point

That Jon Oliver segment was about campaign fundraising. This has nothing to do with campaign fundraising.

This is really a case of Clinton doing her job, but being retroactively hamstrung by conservatives and concern trolls because she also had a large charitable foundation when she was secretary.

 

[pigeon]

I don't think a humanitarian organization should take money off of a rentier state which is hardly more ethical than ISIS.

Why?

This seems like a very strange idea. Literally the business of a charity is to sell moral good feelings to people and use the money to generate good works.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Great to hear that Clinton is acknowledging the source of Wahhabism. But I'll wait and see if she follows through as president, and stops distances our country from the Saudi regime.

I hope you don't expect her to go above and beyond what past president's have done though. I also don't recall Bernie or any of the Republican candidates calling Saudi Arabia or GCC countries out. Honestly, if you wanted to vote for the most anti-Saudi Arabia candidate out of the bunch, Hillary would be it (unless you expect Trump to piss off every country in the world including SA).

 

[Valhelm]

In what way is the Clinton Foundation a part of the Clinton campaign fundraising apparatus.

I mean... this is beyond grasping at this point...

A pretty big part of the Clinton Foundation is to promote the Clintons. I saw Bill and Chelsea speak at a Foundation event last year, and it was pretty transparent.

They do a lot of good work, but much like the Gates foundation, a huge function of this charity is to venerate the individual who leads it.

Why?

This seems like a very strange idea. Literally the business of a charity is to sell moral good feelings to people and use the money to generate good works.

Because accepting money from an illiberal state opens the door to this illiberal state influencing the direction of charity. In addition, I don't believe the Clinton Foundation as exists today is fully separable from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The Foundation's success aids her significantly as a candidate.

I hope you don't expect her to go above and beyond what past president's have done though. I also don't recall Bernie or any of the Republican candidates calling Saudi Arabia or GCC countries out. Honestly, if you wanted to vote for the most anti-Saudi Arabia candidate out of the bunch, Hillary would be it (unless you expect Trump to piss off every country in the world including SA).

Bernie was a little better on Saudi Arabia, but I'm not sure if that's even relevant here. I don't believe Hillary Clinton is sufficiently opposed to the Saudi state, and I believe this should be recognized.

 

[KHarvey16]

opens the door

Slippery slope fallacy much?

 

[Eidan]

A pretty big part of the Clinton Foundation is to promote the Clintons. I saw Bill and Chelsea speak at a Foundation event last year, and it was pretty transparent.

They do a lot of good work, but much like the Gates foundation, a huge function of this charity is to venerate the individual who leads it.

When asked to show how the Clinton Foundation is part of Hillary Clinton's campaign fundraising apparatus, you point to the fact that Clintons have spoken at Clinton Foundation events.

I'm starting to feel like Clinton skeptics aren't even trying anymore.

 

[pigeon]

Because accepting money from an illiberal state opens the door to this illiberal state influencing the direction of charity.

By this argument charities should never accept any money from people who might have earned that money in immoral ways. I don't think this is a correct model for charities at all. The whole point of charities is that you have no control over what they do with the money and it is your job to find one you trust and want to give money to. I don't think you will find many examples of charities actually changing the direction of their charitable acts in response to donations. They might give you a dinner or name something after you, but that's explicitly as far as that goes.

Basically your model for "charity" here is actually "political action group." Those are not the same thing.

In addition, I don't believe the Clinton Foundation as exists today is fully separable from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The Foundation's success aids her significantly as a candidate.

So, again, we're back to "Hilllary Clinton should never have helped thousands of people around the world because it might help her win a political campaign later." I don't really respect this argument at all. I think this understanding of ethics is pretty skewed away from reality.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

So, again, we're back to "Hilllary Clinton should never have helped thousands of people around the world because it might help her win a political campaign later." I don't really respect this argument at all. I think this understanding of ethics is pretty skewed away from reality.

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[BokehKing]

This type of stuff will keep coming out through out her whole term as president, which will probably only be one term. Lesser of two evils yes, but she is still considered a evil.

These type of things that keep popping up for her would have ruined her chances........she really needs to thank Trump on victory night. She couldn't have done this with out his help.

 

[Valhelm]

By this argument charities should never accept any money from people who might have earned that money in immoral ways. I don't think this is a correct model for charities at all. The whole point of charities is that you have no control over what they do with the money and it is your job to find one you trust and want to give money to. I don't think you will find many examples of charities actually changing the direction of their charitable acts in response to donations. They might give you a dinner or name something after you, but that's explicitly as far as that goes.

Basically your model for "charity" here is actually "political action group." Those are not the same thing.



So, again, we're back to "Hilllary Clinton should never have helped thousands of people around the world because it might help her win a political campaign later." I don't really respect this argument at all. I think this understanding of ethics is pretty skewed away from reality.

I'd rather charities not accept money from states, personally. A Saudi donation will always be made to promote Saudi interests. The decision to accept a Saudi donation was foolish at best. Because Saudi Arabia has a pretty long history of influencing American politics, and because Saudi Arabia is a morally reprehensible state, I think the Clinton Foundation should have turned down this money.

And you really don't the Foundation promotes Hillary Clinton as a candidate? This doesn't make their work illegitimate, but it's naive to suggest this isn't a secondary function of the organization.

 

[soundahfekz]

Well she's not president yet. Let's talk in a few years.

But if you think for one second that corporations don't expect a quid pro quo when they spend millions on a candidate, I have a few unicorns and fairies for sale.

So basically you have no fucking proof of what you're saying just so we're clear?

 

[BoosterDuck]

These type of things that keep popping up for her would have ruined her chances........she really needs to thank Trump on victory night. She couldn't have done this with out his help.

yes Benghazis and Emails and Super Predators would've ruined Hillary's chances against......Cruz, or.....Kasich

 

[royalan]

A pretty big part of the Clinton Foundation is to promote the Clintons. I saw Bill and Chelsea speak at a Foundation event last year, and it was pretty transparent.

They do a lot of good work, but much like the Gates foundation, a huge function of this charity is to venerate the individual who leads it.

Bill Clinton is a popular former president.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state.

I don't think they need the charity to promote themselves.

 

[B-Dubs]

Bill Clinton is a popular former president.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state.

I don't think they need the charity to promote themselves.

If anything the point is to use themselves to promote the charity, just like Jimmy Carter does.

 

[pigeon]

I'd rather charities not accept money from states, personally. A Saudi donation will always be made to promote Saudi interests.

I mean, this is an impossible ethical test. Why even care if they accept the money? Basically, if the Saudis are willing to give money to you, you assume they think it will benefit their interest, and since you also assume all their interests are evil or self-promoting, that means that whoever they wanted to give money to must be serving evil interests. So just the fact that the Saudis were willing to make a donation at all proves that the charity is evil, even if they refuse it. That's just them trying to trick you!

And you really don't the Clinton Foundation can promote Hillary Clinton as a candidate?

Clearly it can and does. So? The Clinton Foundation exists because the Clintons built it to do huge charitable works and help millions of people. If the fact that she has helped millions of people promotes her as a candidate, that seems fine to me. The things that people do in their past reflect upon them today and affect how we think about them. That seems normal!

To me this is like saying that Obama ran the Harvard Law Review to benefit himself. Sure, that could be one aspect of it, but he actually had to RUN THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW. That seems like a creditable accomplishment on its own, regardless of whether he did it for the credit or not.

As I asked before, my question is, what exactly do you think Hillary should have done? Because what I'm getting from you is that, having starting the charity at all, she is now suspect for ties to anybody who ever gave money or worked at the charity. Basically the argument here is that if Hillary wanted to run for president she shouldn't have started the charity and should not have tried to help millions of people. Does that not strike you as a terrible argument? Do you actually want a world where people who have the capability to create charitable organizations that can help millions choose not to do so because they might have future political ambitions? That seems like a much worse world to live in, from my perspective.

 

[soundahfekz]

I'd rather charities not accept money from states, personally. A Saudi donation will always be made to promote Saudi interests. The decision to accept a Saudi donation was foolish at best. Because Saudi Arabia has a pretty long history of influencing American politics, and because Saudi Arabia is a morally reprehensible state, I think the Clinton Foundation should have turned down this money.

And you really don't the Foundation promotes Hillary Clinton as a candidate? This doesn't make their work illegitimate, but it's naive to suggest this isn't a secondary function of the organization.

Man this is the silliest argument I've seen all year. Don't do anything good because people may like you for it and support you. Wow.

 

[BokehKing]

yes Benghazis and Emails and Super Predators would've ruined Hillary's chances against......Cruz, or.....Kasich

Yeah...probably
Because people still care about those things no matter how hard people try to sweep it under a rug.

Also....if there was no Trump, I'm pretty sure Little Marco would have came out on top. Cruz was always going to self destruct, Trump took out the bigger threat first...Rubio

 

[Valhelm]

Bill Clinton is a popular former president.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state.

I don't think they need the charity to promote themselves.

I think public Foundation events at universities and parks are politically motivated.

Man this is the silliest argument I've seen all year. Don't do anything good because people may like you for it and support you. Wow.

But taking Saudi money isn't necessarily a good thing. It's comparable to a Mafia don offering to help you with the loan on your house. There are suspicious implications.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think public Foundation events at universities and parks are politically motivated.

And even if we grant you that...so what?

 

[Fat4all]

I think public Foundation events at universities and parks are politically motivated.

even if that was the case, do you think that's the sole purpose of the Clinton Foundation?

 

[riotous]

They do a lot of good work, but much like the Gates foundation, a huge function of this charity is to venerate the individual who leads it..

I've worked with the Gate's foundation as well as many ex employees.. I've been inside and consulted for them. This statement is pretty offensive to the work they do.

 

[Valhelm]

And even if we grant you that...so what?

even if that was the case, do you think that's the sole purpose of the Clinton Foundation?

The Clinton Foundation is political. They do a lot of great work, but they still serve a secondary political function. Because successes of the Clinton Foundation benefit Clinton as a candidate, large donations to the Foundation are a clever way for a donor or government to find themselves in the good graces of Hillary Clinton without violating campaign finance restrictions.

 

[B-Dubs]

The Clinton Foundation is political. They do a lot of great work, but they still serve a secondary political function. Because successes of the Clinton Foundation benefit Clinton as a candidate, large donations to the Foundation are a clever way for a donor or government to find themselves in the good graces of Hillary Clinton without violating campaign finance restrictions.

That's a pretty jaded view of charity dude, like really fucking jaded.