googleplex
Member
And thus cycle of a Hillary is corrupt thread is complete. Only to start up again with the next.
Half of Clinton's nongovernment meetings at State were with donors
- Thread starter remist
- Start date
- Status
And thus cycle of a Hillary is corrupt thread is complete. Only to start up again with the next.
These meetings are evidence that she was heavily involved in the foundation while SoS?
BlastProcessing
Member
Yeah, that train seems pretty empty these days.
Hilarious! I remember how much you loved it during the primaries when people made similar generalizations about Bernie supporters. We have fun here at neogaf.com.
that seems awfully dangerous
jack_package_200
Banned
Apparently asking for evidence to support claims is being mean. TIL
Like every third party voter, weren't you mentioning in every political thread how you were going to vote for Gary Johnson?
Like every third party voter, weren't you mentioning in every political thread how you were going to vote for Gary Johnson?
Big Baybee
Member
People just asking you to give some evidence that backs up your opinion. If there is none then maybe you should reevaluate your opinion. She isn't perfect, no where close to it, but she isn't the caricature that she's become.
I'm not comfortable calling out individuals, but there are four particular posters -- all of whom are very active in PoliGaf -- who have a pretty nasty habit of deflecting or denying any criticism of Hillary.
What possible evidence could convince you of that?
Do you really think this post is better than calling out individuals? Really?
Yes, I'll be supporting Johnson. I seem to get less flack when I say I'll vote Trump.
i can only imagine why...
Are any present here right now? I'm sure you could cite something and simply allow them to respond. I would start by asking what they think though instead of assigning them a set of beliefs.
Team Alucard
Banned
The movement has certainly seen better days, but the worst is also arguably behind us. RCP has the race back down to around five points. Still a large deficit to overcome, but a strong debate performance and an October surprise from Julian could be enough to close the gap.
They did leave off the "don't try this at home" disclaimer, didn't they?
BlastProcessing
Member
Do you have a secret list? Should we have hearings?
CraigerGamer
Member
if money = speech which is what the US Supreme Court has determined than these non-government folks are just putting forth their first amendment rights. no upstanding, red-blooded Republican can be against the First Amendemnt?
unless the person speaking is gay, transgender, black, Latino, Muslim, not from America, or a democrat.
jack_package_200
Banned
Make them wear a Scarlet H.
eBay Huckster
Member
sorry that you're bad at, among other things: posting, defending opinions, and not projecting
sure, let's go with that
alternately, let's go with The Exact Opposite Conclusion
so instead of calling any of them out and/or PMing mods about them, we get sniping. solid.
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 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?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
What emails are you talking about anyway that say they should appoint donors?
BoosterDuck
Banned
You can't back up the shit you said 'watching liberals brush off the bullshit that is the Clinton Foundation' so you lump everyone with a derogative to come out feeling superior.
There was a Politifact link in the post you quoted. Here it is again.
The threads I'm speaking of don't involve baseless conspiracy theories, but legitimate problems with Clinton and her campaign. Financial ties to an oppressive regime and direct collusion with party leadership shouldn't be laughed off, but you're deflecting these legitimate critiques right now.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
RCP is out of date, with recent Reuters/Ipsos poll from today being Clinton +12, and LA poll being Trump +1, RCP average should be ~6.5 points.
Also good luck with Trump having a "strong" debate performance
eBay Huckster
Member
yeah, i'm curious about this myself. was it that one batch of emails where the clinton campaign pretty clearly shitcanned the concept, or was it this where clinton's aides pretty clearly shitcanned the concept?
By "it" do you mean people out to get you or posters who think Hillary is infallible? These are the sort of vague accusations and goalpost shifts that cause problems.
Aaronology
Member
Are you really voting Trump?
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Important bita whole lot of fucking nothing)
How much are you paying these people to make threads for you Alucard?
There is no link in the post I quoted.
And I'm talking about this thread, and the posters defending Hillary Clinton in this thread on this issue.
Do you have evidence demonstrating that favors or unusual access was granted to Clinton Foundation donors by the State Department when Clinton headed it. Evidence of quid pro quo? Evidence of anything? Where is this wrong that you allege we're at blind to pointing out.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
The Mysterious Clinton Four, pictured:
What's up with Poison Ivy's irises? They're two different sizes.
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
Using capacity as secretary of state to raise money for personal political causes is ethically wrong. Even if it's not illegal, I believe it to be a misuse of power.
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?
eBay Huckster
Member
let's call out the DNC (for the hundredth time in a month), then
not sure what this has to do with clinton's conduct at state
not sure what this has to do with clinton's conduct at state
He's trading his guns for topics.
like i said earlier, a grab bag of buzzwords.
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.
Aaronology
Member
So we have a thread asking if Clinton "smack talk" is allowed on GAF... that then in turn becomes a thread filled with Clinton bashing, and several other threads filled with legitimate criticisms of Clinton by people who plan to vote for her. I know, because I was one of them.
Doesn't this refute the point you're trying to make here? You haven't shown this mysterious "Clinton Is Perfect" attitude on GAF, quite the opposite.
Monocle
Member
I don't recall caring about Bernie or his bros at any point, but as for my post, I was just trying to helpfully provide my services as one of those "Hillary is flawless" supporters that this forum is supposedly overrun with.
I mean clearly there must be enough of them to constitute a problem worth complaining about, but for some reason they never seem to show up in any of the threads where they're mentioned. So here I am!
No, I'm voting for Johnson. So, yes? or is it a vote for Clinton? I get screamed at by people on both sides, so I never know.
You are describing bannable behavior. PM a mod if that's what's happening.
In reality it is basically a non-vote, but good on you for getting out there and actually voting.
Veritigo_X
Member
Just to be clear, by "movement" you mean white nationalist movement?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
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.
RainblowDash
Gold Member
To be exact
This summerizes it fairly well
hunchback
Member
I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're probably voting for a different party.
I have a serious question, no sarcasm with it. Instead of complaining or trying to put Hillary in a bad light. Why don't you work on improving your own party that you believe in?
It's not my or anyone else's fault that the other party can't appeal to the majority anymore. Instead of digging dirt, maybe just maybe the other party members can try and improve your message to the people. Then you would be in the White House making the choices.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll