Half of Clinton's nongovernment meetings at State were with donors
- Thread starter remist
- Start date
- Status
Replace "Clinton Foundation" with "UNICEF" or "The Red Cross" and then see if your arguments make sense.
It's a charity that does a lot of great work and is fairly-well ran by all reports.
It's a charity that does a lot of great work and is fairly-well ran by all reports.
Nice job.
"Clinton Foundation's checkered bank account." What does this even mean? POST EVIDENCE.
Let me straighten something out for you; the issue here is not that there is a contingent on GAF who refuses to see Hillary as flawed. Hillary's legit flaws (or just flabbergasting decisions) get regularly discussed by many of the people in this thread defending her on this particular issue. The issue here is that people post baseless articles and/or outright conspiracies and then are shocked (SHOCKED) when people ask for evidence just a bit more substantial than "Well, she did nothing wrong, but gee it sure looks bad" (which is meaningless) or, "Well, she hasn't done anything wrong yet..." (which is laughably meaningless).
What you're confusing for a "Hillary can do no wrong" tone is actually a "how can you spew such crap, support none of it with evidence, and yet still expect to be taken seriously or have your research done for you?" tone.
That isn't proving what you said, you know?
eBay Huckster
Member
you call this "OP, MIMIC, and points south need to take some Ls sooner rather than later" because this constant stream of fucking nothingburgers that get thrown onto OT in new threads like they're particularly bad and Very Big!!! is getting kinda old
like this one, which pretends that the act of having meetings is Unethical and Bad and/or Damn Near Criminal depending on which political opponent you're asking, regardless of whether said meetings actually resulted in anything aside from Huma turning down donors' requests
mentioned MIMIC because he's arguably the single worst offender with regards to Posting Big Threads About Fucking Nothing
To be frank, that tone is the result of the extremely low quality of the anti-Hillary posters that pop up in every thread of this nature. As a rogue's gallery it's Flash-tier.
That's not to say there aren't some pro-Hillary shitposters, but when you already know that a thread is going to be full of incoherent non-arguments, criticisms based on personal distaste instead of evidence, and condescending self-backpats about how obviously Hillary is crooked, you'd be surprised how quickly your tone deteriorates.
Or asking for concrete evidence of wrongdoing is greeted with silence or vague news articles that don't actually say she did anything wrong.
Aaronrules380
Member
Of course it's not a coincidence. Has it not occured to you that as someone heavily involved in the running of a nonprofit charity, Clinton would want to meet with big donors to try and make the CHARITY more money, or to thank them for their donations? There's no evidence that any of the money they were donating was going to Clinton, and no evidence that Clinton was doing favors for them in return (On the contrary, all the examples have her explicitly refusing to do so). Pretty much any big charity is going to interact with big donors to see if they're willing to donate more
Re-quoting the OP is lazy , i know. I'm not perfect.
He is just asking questions, man. Putting them out into the world to get to the truth!
RainblowDash
Gold Member
This is pretty significant since the alleged email leaks revealed that the DNC plans to give their donors special treatment for appointments and rulings, which is incredibly illegal.
Dude Abides
Banned
It's nice to see right wingers drop the pretense that they support charity.
this has nothing to do with the DNC
Lazy is certainly one word you could use to describe that post.
In what universe is the DNC even involved?
Do these drive by anti-hillary posters just grab the standard grab bag of buzz words to post? DNC! Clinton Foundation! Emails!
hunchback
Member
I completely agree. This foundation has done more good than Trump has his entire life. Doesn't anyone remember the Clinton Foundation did a lot to get Aids medications to Africa? Yes, there are probably some dignitaries that have donated. So what. This foundation is Bill's baby and he is helping.
I imagine a lot of them aren't coincidence; big donors to a charity are likely to be people also involved in talking to politicians around the world. A lot of what HRC did as SoS involved charities and initiatives around the world for fighting disease and the like. She represented the US at a lot of World Health Organization conferences for instance.
The Clinton camp provided some solid examples that are hardly controversial; I wouldn't be shocked if there were some more controversial examples too... but what/where are they? What big donor to the foundation met with Hillary under shady circumstances?
BlastProcessing
Member
@mattyglesias 3h3 hours ago
To generate more than half they need to exclude all officials of the US and foreign governments from the denominator.
@mattyglesias 3h3 hours ago
And the smoking gun is that Clinton went out of her way to help a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was having trouble with a foreign government?
@mattyglesias 3h3 hours ago
The other gotcha: She sat at the same table as the wife of the Kennedy Centers chairman while attending the Kennedy Center Honors.
@mattyglesias 1h1 hour ago Washington, DC
If it were true that she only met or spoke on the phone with 154 people over four years, that would be a scandal.
Quid-pro-quo has almost always been near impossible to prove. People's political allegiance seems to be the only thing that determines what they believe in these scenarios.
My leanings will lead me to believe differently than most in this thread. The only difference is most don't seem to recognize how their politics will determine how they interpret the information in the OP.
The hilarious idea that the Secretary of State would only meet 154 people over 4 years.
So you dont have evidence and give up and resort to use Feelings (tm)
^ found one, guys ^
jack_package_200
Banned
justaskingquestions.gif
Dude Abides
Banned
There are no facts. Only subjective interpretations. It's astounding how modern conservatism has embraced postmodernism so enthusiastically.
Part of what happens in discussions like this is that some people come in with an overall conclusion already firmly in place. In this case, that primary conclusion that drives everything after it is that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy and a bad person. Any specific accusation of wrongdoing is then assumed to be true going into the discussion. If arguments show that maybe it isn't, well who cares since the ultimate conclusion is still unquestionably true and arguing this little point just makes you the member of some kind of defense force.
They see it akin to arguing the proven murderer didn't run that red light while leaving the crime scene. Except they don't realize in this case that we haven't proven this person committed a murder and can't even seem to find a dead body.
They see it akin to arguing the proven murderer didn't run that red light while leaving the crime scene. Except they don't realize in this case that we haven't proven this person committed a murder and can't even seem to find a dead body.
Yeah fuck opinions, this should a fact based forum where we all agree on things unequivocally proven.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Yes, you and the people with your leanings do tend to arrive at conclusions with no actual evidence to back it up. It's true.
"...and here we see the player start picking up the goal post, moving it to the desired position."
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
If you genuinely want to convince someone, then you're not going to have much luck talking down to them.
If you know they're an idiot and aren't going to listen to polite reason, well, how you spend your time is up to you, but I reckon you have better things to spend it on. Especially if that kind of negativity leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the people you genuinely want to convince.
TheRagnCajun
Member
Is it an 'extaordinary proportion'? I have no frame of reference here. Excluding people who work for the US government or for another government, which assume account for most meetings, how many people should Hilary Clinton be meeting with? How many of those people are allowed to be donors? What should she have done here?
BlastProcessing
Member
Is this a hill you really want to defend? That facts aren't important in politics?
I interpreted this to say:
"I allow my political ideology to cloud my perception of reality, but that's ok because I'm sure you do too."
If your opinion on this thread is that there's no real way to know anything and people are just going to believe whatever their preconceived notions lead them to believe, I'm unclear on why you're bothering to post in the thread at all.
googleplex
Member
If you're opinions are based on the vaguest of the vague bullshit. Then you tend to have those opionions challenged.
Where? Where are all these "Clinton Can Do No Wrong" people on GAF? Is there a secret club?
Nearly every Hillary thread has been marked by constant deflection, denialism, and sometimes even shaming against posters who criticize Hillary, even if from the left. In the last two months alone, this attitude has still been rampant--
Is Hillary smack-talk not allowed here anymore?
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down, Joining Clinton campaign
E-Mails by Clinton Aides Show State-Foundation Links
538: Clinton and Trump are losing a lot of young voters
The attitude among some posters is clear -- you're either with Hillary 100% or you're as bad as a Trump supporter.
Yeesh.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
yea, usually when you are in a debate about proving corruption, you tend to back up your arguments with these small thing called "facts" and "proof"
crazy fucking concept, I know
I'm terribly sorry your precious opinions got bruised by people asking for you to back them up with actual evidence.
Sheesh.
Is there maybe a post or poster you'd like to point out specifically?
She promised the public that she would not be heavily involved in the charity and that she would leave it in other peoples capable hands
That's evidence that these meetings don't violate the letter of the memorandum, it's not evidence that she made a good faith effort to keep a firewall between her and the foundation. The foundation already admittedly violated the agreement when it comes to yearly disclosure of some foreign donations.
When we have posters like you that compare defending the clinton foundation to defending the soviet union?
Also you dont post examples, especialy since the first links even has MODS asking for specifics from users that have a problem and none of them respond to the GAF moderators.
Team Alucard
Banned
There's always more room on the Trump train.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
RainblowDash
Gold Member
It's not like Hillary Clinton isn't the current embodiment of the DNC at the moment...
No need to get offended either, as I stated, the controversy is currently all 'alleged' anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll