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

Status
Not open for further replies.
2MF said:
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.
Click to expand...


She's been a politician for a long time, though. I get the skepticism, but there is no evidence that she is a dirty politician.
 
dIEHARD said:
Oh man watching liberals brush off the bullshit that is the Clinton Foundation is amusing.
Click to expand...

I know, how dare they help people, they should just use their bootstraps!
 
2MF said:
The "Hillary can do no wrong" crowd is strong in this thread.

Note: In before someone accuses me of supporting Trump.
Click to expand...
Even the most ardent Clinton supporter on GAF will readily admit she has made mistakes, as will the woman herself (and often). We're just tired of bullshit "controversies" wasting everyone's time. Instead of pretending this latest yawn is being dismissed by imaginary people on GAF who believe Clinton is perfect, why don't you point out exactly what everyone should be alarmed about here?
 
2MF said:
Taking lots of money from corporations and pretending that won't affect her decisions.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...clinton-banks-oil-links-presidential-campaign
Click to expand...

2MF said:
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.
Click to expand...


I swear to god. If I went to the gaming side and made claims like this about the PS4,Xbox or WiiU without any receipts to back me up. I would be fearing for my account

This Shit is tiresome
 
dIEHARD said:
Oh man watching liberals brush off the bullshit that is the Clinton Foundation is amusing.
Click to expand...
Explain the bullshit that is the Clinton Foundation. Use simple words, lest my flighty liberal mind begins to wander on to daydreams of single payer healthcare and livable wages.
 
It seems pretty arbitrary to exclude world leaders who donated from this list but not private individuals who also may have an important, non-personal reason for meeting.
 
royalan said:
Any evidence or indication of quid pro quo?

No?

Title of the article should be, "THIS JUST IN: HILLARY CLINTON MEETS WITH PEOPLE ON HER FREE TIME".

I think it's disgusting at this point that the desire to find Hillary Clinton guilty of some international scandal has become so great that we're willing to tear down a charity responsible for providing aid to women and children globally, and for whom no major legit scandal has been discovered, simply because the Clinton name is attached to it. I mean, do the people calling for The Clinton Foundation to be shut down even know what it is? What it's responsible for? The good it does?

Meanwhile, we have a man who is literally funneling champaign money into his failing businesses, and who may very well be indebted to hostile nations, and receives only a fraction of the scrutiny.
Click to expand...

This.
 
~Devil Trigger~ said:
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"
Click to expand...

Kasich is more likely to walk over to Clinton's podium and yell at her face for speaking while he is than Trump is calling Clinton a bitch.

Kasich was/is a taking time bomb with women "questioning" him.
 
These stories bother me because, as discussed, there is no actual evidence of any wrongdoing or any favors done for donors in any of this stuff. The article literally only gives examples of people who asked for favors and did not apparently receive them!

So basically the the issue is that the Clintons built a huge charity before she became Secretary and ran for President, and so she knows a bunch of dignitaries and rich people because that's what you do when you build a charity, you talk to dignitaries and rich people and get them to give you stuff for free so that you can do charitable stuff with them.

I would like to clearly understand what people find problematic here.

Would they rather Hillary had planned ahead better, not founded the Clinton Foundation, and just let thousands of people die or suffer? Does that sound like a significantly better world?

Would they rather Hillary not have done illegal or unethical stuff that there is no evidence she did but they are confident she did anyway? That seems like an impossible bar to clear.

Would they rather Hillary have snubbed all of her former relationships, networks, and friends when she became Secretary of State and refused to meet with them? Wouldn't that be pretty unfair towards them? They didn't know she was going to be Secretary of State! They might have genuine business with the American government, since they are dignitaries and rich people. Also, I am genuinely confused by this position when people advance it. Do other people not network and build relationships as they move from job to job and continue leveraging those relationships? I thought that was pretty normal behavior.

If there is not a clear and actually sensible thing you wish Hillary had done better, then I kind of feel like you're just mad to be mad at her.
 
2MF said:
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.
Click to expand...

She was a senator for eight years.
 
2MF said:
What alarms me here is precisely the "Hillary can do no wrong" tone evident in many of the posts.
Click to expand...
Even the most ardent Clinton supporter on GAF will readily admit she has made mistakes, as will the woman herself (and often). We're just tired of bullshit "controversies" wasting everyone's time. Instead of pretending this latest yawn is being dismissed by imaginary people on GAF who believe Clinton is perfect, why don't you point out exactly what everyone should be alarmed about here?
 
pigeon said:
These stories bother me because, as discussed, there is no actual evidence of any wrongdoing or any favors done for donors in any of this stuff. The article literally only gives examples of people who asked for favors and did not apparently receive them!

So basically the the issue is that the Clintons built a huge charity before she became Secretary and ran for President, and so she knows a bunch of dignitaries and rich people because that's what you do when you build a charity, you talk to dignitaries and rich people and get them to give you stuff for free so that you can do charitable stuff with them.

I would like to clearly understand what people find problematic here.

Would they rather Hillary had planned ahead better, not founded the Clinton Foundation, and just let thousands of people die or suffer? Does that sound like a significantly better world?

Would they rather Hillary not have done illegal or unethical stuff that there is no evidence she did but they are confident she did anyway? That seems like an impossible bar to clear.

Would they rather Hillary have snubbed all of her former relationships, networks, and friends when she became Secretary of State and refused to meet with them? Wouldn't that be pretty unfair towards them? They didn't know she was going to be Secretary of State! They might have genuine business with the American government, since they are dignitaries and rich people. Also, I am genuinely confused by this position when people advance it. Do other people not network and build relationships as they move from job to job and continue leveraging those relationships? I thought that was pretty normal behavior.

If there is not a clear and actually sensible thing you wish Hillary had done better, then I kind of feel like you're just mad to be mad at her.
Click to expand...

Dont you know Pigeon, leaders of massive worldwide non-profit charities have no buisiness meeting the head of the state department regarding their work.
 
Example of Clinton's schedule:

CqlOYnhWEAEct2j.jpg


It would be very weird if she only met 150 people in four years.
 
I really don't get how it matters who Clinton meets up with in her free time, unless this is only supposed to refer to people she met under her official capacity as Secretary of State
 
riotous said:
Giving to charities is a tax break, but you still... give to the charity, far more than the tax break you get. If you donate $1,000,000 you save $350,000 in taxes... a net loss of $650,000. It's a complete myth that wealthy people can actually save money by giving it to charity.

And charities don't pay taxes; so what are you even talking about?

The shadiest thing people do with private charities involves paying themselves a salary. IIRC Hillary stopped paying herself a salary when she stopped working for the charity (when she was SoS). The charity is a highly rated one, meaning it's efficient with spending it's money and aren't over-paying employees or having money embroiled in administrative costs. That's the type of thing a currrupt charity could do; say you run a charity and also own a construction business.. make your charity pay for a "community center" and then give your construction business the gig and over-pay. As far as anyone knows, The Clinton Foundation is free of that sort of corruption.
Click to expand...
Well no, they arent saving money. The donation is a "gift" to the usually weathly or well connected organizer who could probably influence an intrest while still providing benefits to the donator. As someone said earlier, favors.

I never said charities pay taxes. Im saying the organizers of the charity being able to write off money made from their charity and recieve breaks. I can't point to a specific code but I kinda remember reading something about this.
 
2MF said:
What alarms me here is precisely the "Hillary can do no wrong" tone evident in many of the posts.
Click to expand...

There was a thread basically on this that seemed to be asking rhetorically if we can't criticize her here. Most responses, including mod responses, were just like "what is your specific problem" and seemed to not get the general tone was the issue.
 
dIEHARD said:
Oh man watching liberals brush off the bullshit that is the Clinton Foundation is amusing.
Click to expand...

It's really kind of scary. There's an unfaltering reverence toward Hillary that doesn't seem to exist for Obama, where many hardcore supporters just refuse to accept that Hillary has some bad points. The damage control about the Clinton Foundation's checkered bank account is bewildering, as well as the apathy of self-proclaimed progressives toward her hawkish tendencies.

This attitude reminds me of the inability of some socialists to acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a fundamentally unjust society. Obviously there's lots of disinformation going around, but that doesn't mean your team is perfect.
 
Valhelm said:
It's really kind of scary. There's an unfaltering reverence toward Hillary that doesn't seem to exist for Obama, where many hardcore supporters just refuse to accept that Hillary has some bad points. The damage control about the Clinton Foundation's checkered bank account is bewildering, as well as the apathy of self-proclaimed progressives toward her hawkish tendencies.

This attitude reminds me of the inability of some socialists to acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a fundamentally unjust society. Obviously there's lots of disinformation going around, but that doesn't mean your team is perfect.
Click to expand...

defending the Clinton Foundation = Defending the Soviet Union?


We have got it all in this thread.
 
jay said:
There was a thread basically on this that seemed to be asking rhetorically if we can't criticize her here. Most responses, including mod responses, were just like "what is your specific problem" and seemed to not get the general tone was the issue.
Click to expand...

Tone is hard to read over the internet, just so you know.
 
jay said:
There was a thread basically on this that seemed to be asking rhetorically if we can't criticize her here. Most responses, including mod responses, were just like "what is your specific problem" and seemed to not get the general tone was the issue.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to expect the general tone to turn against a poster that refuses to answer specific questions.
 
Valhelm said:
It's really kind of scary. There's an unfaltering reverence toward Hillary that doesn't seem to exist for Obama, where many hardcore supporters just refuse to accept that Hillary has some bad points. The damage control about the Clinton Foundation's checkered bank account is bewildering, as well as the apathy of self-proclaimed progressives toward her hawkish tendencies.

This attitude reminds me of the inability of some socialists to acknowledge that the Soviet Union was a fundamentally unjust society. Obviously there's lots of disinformation going around, but that doesn't mean your team is perfect.
Click to expand...
Knonx3O.gif


Where? Where are all these "Clinton Can Do No Wrong" people on GAF? Is there a secret club?
 
rambis said:
Well no, they arent saving money. The donation is a "gift" to the usually weathly or well connected organizer who could probably influence an intrest while still providing benefits to the donator. As someone said earlier, favors.

I never said charities pay taxes. Im saying the organizers of the charity being able to write off money made from their charity and recieve breaks.
Click to expand...

What benefit does Clinton personally derive from the foundation receiving money, given that she isn't getting paid any sort of salary from the foundation?

Unless you're suggesting she's prioritizing the causes of the foundation over her responsibility as a government official, but that's a different kind of ethical issue altogether
 
I'm really starting to think this consistent narrative from a segment of people that posters actually believe Hillary is perfect is a consequence of the nebulous and vague nature of their criticisms, and not so much the responses to that criticism.
 
Seems to me at this point that there are people who are happy that they're voting for Hilary in November, and people who are not happy that they are voting for Hilary in November. There's not much hope or reason to try to convince either camp to cross over.

Might as well break bread over Trump's mounting defeat, and save the bickering for when Hilary starts taking action in office.
 
So many of the examples are somebody asking for something, and Huma politely brushing them off or telling them to go through regular channels.

What do you call this? Pay-to-get-a-polite-email-brush-off?

So now we have some more emails related to Hillary Clinton, and what have we learned? The crown prince of Bahrain wanted to meet with the Secretary of State, and in addition to making a request through normal channels he also talked to someone at the Clinton Foundation, who then called Huma Abedin. The meeting took place, which is entirely unexceptional since meeting with people like this is the Secretary of State's job. There's no indication that the extra push by the Foundation had any particular effect.

Another time, someone at the Foundation called Abedin to see if she could expedite a visa. She said this made her nervous, and the Foundation guy backed off.

On another occasion, a lobbyist who had formerly been a Democratic staffer asked for a meeting with her client, a coal company executive. Abedin blew her off.

We might yet find a smoking gun in all these emails. But so far, the trend is clear: lots of people talked to Huma Abedin to try to set up meetings with Hillary Clinton. Generally speaking, Abedin treated them politely but told them to get lost.
Click to expand...
 
JackDT said:
So many of the examples are somebody asking for something, and Huma politely brushing them off or telling them to go through regular channels.

What do you call this? Pay-to-get-a-polite-email-brush-off?
Click to expand...

She should have developed precog and refused to let them even contact the state department ever.
 
rambis said:
Well no, they arent saving money. The donation is a "gift" to the usually weathly or well connected organizer who could probably influence an intrest while still providing benefits to the donator. As someone said earlier, favors.
Click to expand...

Which only makes sense in the case where the person running the charity was using the charity to somehow funnel money to themselves. There's no evidence of that here. Clinton has had a job at their charity from time to time, she steps down when she's in office. She makes a crap-ton more money outside of her position at the charity, it's not some huge windfall for her. It's a charity.. that does good things.

I never said charities pay taxes. Im saying the organizers of the charity being able to write off money made from their charity and recieve breaks. I can't point to a specific code but I kinda remember reading something about this.
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are talking about here; why would the organizer of a charity be able to write off other people's donations? You "kinda remember" huh?

The Clinton's had a 35% effective tax rate last year.. so I don't see how they are somehow benefiting from other people's donations to their charity lol.
 
plop said:
Seriously.

I'd wager there are far more people who bitch about the number of "Clinton can do no wrong" people than there are actual "Clinton can do no wrong people" on GAF.
Click to expand...

I think the total of "Clinton can do no wrong" people would be less than 5 on here, and that is an extremely generous number.
 
2MF said:
What alarms me here is precisely the "Hillary can do no wrong" tone evident in many of the posts.
Click to expand...
Heh. I think you're probably more upset when people look into this stuff to see if Hillary did wrong. i.e. you'd much rather they just glance from the outside and say "That sure looks fishy. I wish someone had time to really dig in there, but we don't, but it sure looks fishy".
 
Aaronology said:
Knonx3O.gif


Where? Where are all these "Clinton Can Do No Wrong" people on GAF? Is there a secret club?
Click to expand...

Shot in the dark..

They project from arguing on Facebook..

I've gone blue in the face responding to people here that Clinton is a scumbag, but she's a better choice than Trump. Folks want to pretend that no one understands that she's done some shit In the past. They all offer the information as Its a smoking gun. It's to say "see she's NOT perfect!!!! Ah ha!!! Caught ya bitch!" Yet...


No one says she's infallible. Yet, the mystery posters are always being debated with...
 
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