Half of Clinton's nongovernment meetings at State were with donors
- Thread starter remist
- Start date
- Status
You just said a whole lot of shit with fuckall in the way of evidence to back up a sliver of it. You said people paid to meet with her. Show proof. The article in the OP doesn't even take that position. You say she financially benefitted from her charity. Show some fucking proof.
That's the issue that keeps coming up in these threads. Time and time again people bring up baseless allegations fueled by their "feelings" and decades of buying into a GOP narrative that an ambitious woman is an untrustworthy one, and when they're asked to back up their claims they start whinging about GAF being too pro-Clinton or that no one will allow criticism of her. You're just being asked to back up the garbage that spills onto your keyboard. It's a fucking staple of GAF, and a standard even the GAMING side is willing to adhere to when talking about fucking Nintendo sales or No Man's Sky promises. Why would we expect any less when discussing candidates for the US presidency?
bangbang i'm a timpani
Banned
remember gaf: if you criticize clinton then you're a republican shill who is anti women and a misogynist.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I've always felt that she is more of a political weather vane that simply points in the direction the wind is blowing from. Yes, she is running on these platforms but I must admit that I doubt she'll actually fight for it unless she is driven to it.
My one and only wish would be to see some kind of public option or at the very least, legislation passed that would help to shore up the present-day shortcomings of Obamacare. But I doubt she'll do it...the political cost Obama paid was very great and I somehow doubt she will do the same. I hope I am wrong.
Needless to say though, I will be voting for her...twice if I can.
disastermouse
Banned
They tried to discredit Obama too, but couldn't find anything. And with Hillary, new stuff just keep popping up every week.
Holy strawman
I'm pretty sure Eidan did not call you anti-women or a misogynist, though pretending he did is a neat trick for getting around actually responding to anything he said.
And for the record, the GOP's enmity for Hillary is absolutely born out of a sense of indignation toward Hillary seemingly overstepping her bounds as First Lady. In the early 90s Republicans did not like Hillary carrying herself as someone who should meet and discuss with them on policy, or speak as if she had any kind of authority, when she was "just" First Lady. It did not take long for that "how dare this woman talk to us like she matters" mentality to grow into a hatred of all things Hillary, or all things Clinton for that matter.
Hillary has always been liberal right from the start (see: her failed attempt at passing single-payer healthcare in the early 90s), but she's also moved further left as her party has moved further left too. Isn't that what you want in an elected official, someone who more accurately represents your views?
When I was a teenager, I was not in favor of gay marriage. Now I'm embarrassed I ever held that position. I do not want my senator, congressperson or president to continue opposing gay marriage just because I did once upon a time. I want their views and policies to evolve in tandem with mine.
Veritigo_X
Member
Can't even be bothered responding to Eidan calling you out, instead opting for a lazy comment. Sad!
This is what gets me. All we hear are "the optics look bad" with this stuff. If she's corrupt and blatantly trading money for favors, how is there no actual evidence of it?
Aaronology
Member
Both your post history and thread creation history reveal someone who is incapable of having a thorough conversation about any serious topic. You just ran from your own recent hit and run topic attacking Clinton, one that required a mod title change no less, and instead of writing anything of substance in this thread you're basically playing the "GAF IS MEAN" victim card. Yet... no one has called you a shill or anti-woman or attacked your character.
At this point you are really just embarrassing yourself, Bangbang.
eBay Huckster
Member
pretty sure the "buying into our caricature" section of that post was meant to imply i didn't literally think one article changed your opinion of her given that it explicitly mentions a 40-year time span, but thanks for the snark, Guy
and you need to stop trying to be Diablos But Without Capital Letters
Pretty much this. I do find it hilarious of the far left using the far rights talking points, there is some irony to be found in there. Sad!
Aaronrules380
Member
Yeah. Sure you probably won't find 100% definitive evidence for stuff like this most of the time, but you should at least be able to give reasonable examples of favors she may have performed by giving consistent links of preferable policy to donors, as well as inconsistency in similar issues when dealing with non donors. It's especially dumb to accuse in cases like this where there's literally no evidence that any of the donation money even goes to or aids Clinton herself. You'd have more of a starting point for donations to her campaign itself, but even that isn't really evidence without more substantial examples of where quid pro quo could be occuring
eBay Huckster
Member
like i said in that post from last night, the best/worst part is that they don't have any examples but still keep acting like it's incontrovertibly true that there's just something going on, believe me anyway. the closest thing we even have to a genuine quid pro quo in her political career is an allegation of changing her vote on a bankruptcy bill that never even passed (and never even came close to passing) - everything related to the DNC got shitcanned, as far as i can tell everything related to the foundation got shitcanned, and everything related to this thread's content got shitcanned. it's a nothingburger topped with nothingbacon and drizzled with nothing sauce on nothing buns but they'll tell you until next year that it looks like chicken.
like jesus christ, people. i didn't like her in the slightest at the beginning of this election cycle and you've brought me to this point.
Aaronrules380
Member
Yep. She's not flawless (the email scenario was definitely careless of her, though most likely not Malicious. Though I doubt anything like that will happen with her again after the flak she's gotten for it)
Dude Abides
Banned
It's hard to be a conservative brony.
Very dismissive comments in that thread. Folks that argue criticism on this issue is coming solely from a place of feel should at the very least read that story.
I get that Republicans have been crying wolf when it comes to Hillary for decades but that does not mean that she is incapable of impropriety when it comes to the Clinton Foundation and pay to play politics. She'd be an incredibly vulnerable candidate given her baggage if it wasn't for Donald Trump.
disastermouse
Banned
You really don't have a problem with this?
http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107
This reminds me of a West Wing episode where, after revealing that Bartlett has MS to White House Counsel, they determine that it's really bad specifically because Bartlett did everything you do to avoid incurring illegality while perpetrating a fraud.
tedrotheredro
Member
Biggest non-story ever, but I love this NY Post cover:
What a badass.
What a badass.
eBay Huckster
Member
first of all, what the fuck even is that site design where after scrolling one pixel under the beginning of an embedded video it immediately scrolls another page down
second of all, i have an issue with the lobbying that actually considers the context of the political system it happens in, which is to say i don't use it to bludgeon people over the head re: how the clintons are singularly The Worst Things To Happen To American Politics
i take into account that literally anyone who's anything at any level is guilty of it and am pissed off at the system itself rather than one person in it
second of all, i have an issue with the lobbying that actually considers the context of the political system it happens in, which is to say i don't use it to bludgeon people over the head re: how the clintons are singularly The Worst Things To Happen To American Politics
i take into account that literally anyone who's anything at any level is guilty of it and am pissed off at the system itself rather than one person in it
TheRagnCajun
Member
I don't know guys, we're 11 pages in here and this isn't any clearer to me. I don't know if this is something to be upset about or not because I don't know what is an appropriate number of donors for her to meet with. If it was 30 people would we have still cared? What's the limit?
Link
The Autumn Wind
You're better than this.
Shy Fingers
Banned
Isn't this something that all politicians can be linked to? Money is what makes them live or die come reelection. I don't see an issue with this.
Ok. For the record though, I honestly WISH some Clinton skeptics would actually bring it when it came to cogent arguments. It would at least make the conversations more interesting.
I was just reading Rude Pundit's take on this issue, and it has one of the most succinct descriptions of these Clinton scandals: that the Republicans are trying to elect a serial killer, but some on the left and a lot on the right, want us to give just as much time and energy to whether Clinton has or has not jaywalked.
How quickly we're forgetting: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/
I guess that's circumstantial evidence too, right?
That's because she represents what people don't like about politics.
I can't find the criminal part.
How COULD you prove it? If she's smart, she'd agree to.something verbally in these meeting ands then make good on it. There would be no paper trail to follow. But there are at least a few suspicious incidents:
1) changing vote on the bankruptcy bill after telling Elizabeth Warren that she needed to stop it when she was a senator. Warren was pretty harsh about using it as an example of how money distorts politics at the time.
2) placing Rajiv Fernando, a Clinton Foundation donor and securities trader on a security advisory board for nuclear weapons, something he clearly was not qualified for.
She may have made these decisions no matter what, but there's no way to know, and theres no way to know what was said behind closed doors.
I'm voting for her in November, but I think she needs to doand should have done a better job at making it very clear that she is above reproach. She gets these accusations because she does a poor job of limiting the appearance of corruption.
The answer should be zero. My personal standard is no appearance of corruption.
Actual corruption though, that's fair game. As long as it doesn't look like corruption.
Wow. Total cluelessness as to how charities and tax deductions work, yet doubling down on that ignorance.
Not surprising, given the poster, but still.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Nobody will ever meet your standard, so I guess you just don't vote at all?
Are you seriously arguing this in a thread about Hillary Clinton emails?
If she can manage to be corrupt without having even a whiff of corruption, than more power to her.
Yes, are there transcripts of the meetings? If we knew what was said in every one of these do or meetings there would be no confusion or.controversy. This is not hard to understand.
He really isn't.
Your priorities are very silly.
You think Obama appears corrupt? News to me.
vainglorious
Member
The opposition is literally throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Hillary desperately hoping something sticks to her. But what's amazing is that perfectly legal behavior and actions (such as these meetings) are constantly being spun by the opposition as suspicious to feed this artificial narrative of Hillary being untrustworthy.
And then when no wrong doing is found, conservatives lose their minds!
Vicious cycle.
And then when no wrong doing is found, conservatives lose their minds!
Vicious cycle.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Rajiv Fernando was appointed in to his administration. I'm not saying he is corrupt, but it sure doesn't look good when Obama has am unqualified person in such a position, shortly after that person donated to a political ally of Obama's.
Krauser Kat
Member
This just in. People in politics also donate to politics. If a sitting democrat hires a democratic person in a high position, chances are almost 100% they have donated to both hillary and obama at some point.
People with money donate politically. People in poltics donate money politically. People in politics usually have money. I guess to work in politics you can participate in politics... according to you.
SirClinksAlot
Member
Yeah, Chicago politicians are notorious not corrupt! Wait.
He didn't appoint him though.
Not sure if this is a joke. But being from Chicage is a pretty weak argument of corruption. Whereas Clinton has at least a few incidents that look shady. They may not actually BE shady, but they look it. I cant explain away Rajiv Fernando as anything other than doing a favor for a donor. It's such a transparently bad appointment.
Obama doesn't have anything similar except for maybe ambassadors, which is so commonplace that it's hard to call out one President for it when they all do it.
Ah, judging someone by where they're from. Good move there.
TheRagnCajun
Member
Wouldn't that show a bias of deliberately avoiding meeting with donors?
She appointed him on a board he was completely unfit for. Gee, I wonder why. Jesus Christ, you people are in denial.
What were the required qualifications to be on the advisory board? Not merely your assumptions, please provide evidence.
Read the article, it explains how the board was staffed.
Cornbread78
Member
Ya know, this election is the absolute worst for Independent voters, like myself. If there was ever the need for a prominent third party, it would be now. These two running for office are just so... ugghh...
Pack it up, send the woman and children out on the escape pods first; it's all going down...
Pack it up, send the woman and children out on the escape pods first; it's all going down...
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll