Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

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.

You're avoiding my question.

Is the world where the Clintons never set up the Clinton Foundation and help millions of people because of the possibility of apparent but never confirmed conflicts of interest coming up later if Hillary tries to run for president a better or worse world?

 

[royalan]

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.

So let me just follow you for a second and make the assumption that you're right, that Bill Clinton founded a charity, and his family spent years building it up, raising money through it, and helping countless people around the world, purely to help bolster Hillary Clinton's eventual presidential bid...

Ok, and? Did they still not have to operate a by-the-books charity? Did they still not have to raise millions and help countless people around the world?

 

[Valhelm]

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

I think all non-anonymous charity serves a self-promotional function. This doesn't render their work illegitimate.

It's similar to taking advantage of tax benefits toward charitable giving.

So let me just follow you for a second and make the assumption that you're right, that Bill Clinton founded a charity, and his family spent years building it up, raising money through it, and helping countless people around the world, purely to help bolster Hillary Clinton's eventual presidential bid...

Ok, and? Did they still not have to operate a by-the-books charity? Did they still not have to raise millions and help countless people around the world?

I'm not concerned with the ethical implications of running a charity, Royalan. What bothers me is the acceptance of money from Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi Arabia probably doesn't care about the Clinton Foundation's charitable efforts, I think it's a transparent attempt by Saudi Arabia to influence the policies of a presumed future president.

 

[MIMIC]

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.

I have never voted, nor have I ever considered voting for the Republican party.

Why is Hillary so above reproach? (I'd really like a non-Hillary stan to answer that question...because saying she isn't, and then acting like she is, doesn't convince anyone of anything)

 

[Aaronology]

I have never voted, nor have I ever considered voting for the Republican party.

Why is Hillary so above reproach? (I'd really like a non-Hillary stan to answer that question...because saying she isn't, and then acting like she is, doesn't convince anyone of anything)

How do people act like she's above criticism, MIMIC?

 

[M0nochromatic]

Of course money is exchanged. You can't get anywhere without greasing palms in one way or another. That's the reality of it. The follow up question is how does that effect policy and such. Does it harm the American people?

Go and look at her voting records and what she's said on issues. She's pretty blue. And also, even if it's all one big setup, it's really too late for us to stop it. Worst case scenario, it comes down to a president who'd sell us out to the highest bidder, and a president who'd be too incompetent to sell us out.

 

[commedieu]

Hillary is so corrupt.

- says who?

Ugh I hate gafs hive mind. I'm out.

 

[royalan]

I have never voted, nor have I ever considered voting for the Republican party.

Why is Hillary so above reproach? (I'd really like a non-Hillary stan to answer that question...because saying she isn't, and then acting like she is, doesn't convince anyone of anything)

KHarvey (who last I checked isn't a Hillary Stan) answered this question 3 pages ago:

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.

 

[Alucrid]

KHarvey (who last I checked isn't a Hillary Stan) answered this question 3 pages ago:

but can they trust a hillary stan check from a hillary stan

 

[Aaronology]

but can they trust a hillary stan check from a hillary stan

Good point. Pretty sure royalan is one of the Clinton Four that Vanhelm refuses to name. Completely untrustworthy!

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I have never voted, nor have I ever considered voting for the Republican party.

Why is Hillary so above reproach? (I'd really like a non-Hillary stan to answer that question...because saying she isn't, and then acting like she is, doesn't convince anyone of anything)

She's not above reproach, but some of us keep our priorities in check, instead of spending our time attempting to legitimize a bunch of what if's, or conjured up and/or iffy-at-best scandal material.

What's the end game here?

 

[B-Dubs]

I think all non-anonymous charity serves a self-promotional function. This doesn't render their work illegitimate.

It's similar to taking advantage of tax benefits toward charitable giving.

Yea, that's pretty damn jaded dude.

 

[Debirudog]

At least in this topic, Hillary supporters use facts and the contents of the article to argue that these charity donors are a non-issue to begin with.

The people who accuse her with these donors tend to not have any evidence to prove she is guilty of being bribed other than stating they simply think it's fishy.

 

[Valhelm]

Yea, that's pretty damn jaded dude.

I don't think cynicism in electoral politics should be discouraged. The biggest motivation is always self-interest.

 

[Raiden1018]

Hillary is so corrupt.

- says who?

Ugh I hate gafs hive mind. I'm out.

?

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't think cynicism in politics should be discouraged. The biggest motivation is always self-interest.

I don't disagree about some cynicism being needed, but that definitely seems way more jaded than actually necessary.

 

[rokkerkory]

Meetings overall are bad, agreed

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I don't think cynicism in electoral politics should be discouraged. The biggest motivation is always self-interest.

Rampant and unwarranted cynicism is how conservatism succeeds at filling our state houses and Congress with regressive buffoons and insurgents.

 

[Debirudog]

Regarding politics in cynicism...Is there a reason why Clinton badly wanted to push in universal health care (it wasn't even a thought back then) despite failing miserably?

Sometimes, people do care for other people. As idealistic as that sounds. Whatever errors and mistakes she made, I honestly believe Hillary wants to help people.

 

[Joeytj]

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.



And she eventually warned the government against undermining the bank.

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

Wait a minute, so she should say no just because he once donated to the the Clinton Foundation? Even though It might've been good policy to defend the bank? (which, I admit I don't know, but I bet most who would attack Hillary for this don't care either).

 

[excelsiorlef]

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

Chris Christie took out Rubio.

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

Anything more than a hypothetical? It really makes for a laughably poor argument.

 

[BoosterDuck]

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

the only people who 'care' about TEH BANGHAZIZ AND TEH EMAILZ are crazy right wing fear mongers

You saw Marco's campaign it was just establishment regurgitation and Reagan dryhumping. He's too inexperienced to run against Hillary, even Florida doesn't want him lol. I agree though that Cruz would have a chance if he played his cards right but his crazy dogmatic ideologies wouldn't take him far in the polls. Kasich....lol

And Trump was focusing his attention on Jeb throughout the debates (with hilarious results), everyone else dogpiled on the choke artist Rubio.

 

[Joeytj]

Regarding politics in cynicism...Is there a reason why Clinton badly wanted to push in universal health care (it wasn't even a thought back then) despite failing miserably?

Sometimes, people do care for other people. As idealistic as that sounds. Whatever errors and mistakes she made, I honestly believe Hillary wants to help people.

People who hate her will just assume it was all part of a plan to fail and then use that failure as a grand plan to scheme a presidential run 23 years latter.

The accusation against politicians doing something "because it might get them more votes" comes usually from people who don't believe in the political process to begin with. They will never see a good deed in politics, just more politics and "politics=bad!".

Usually, these same people suck at politics anyway, which frustrates them even more when they lose.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Whats with all these Clinton threads on GAF that sound doom and gloom and then when you read the OP itsfuckingnothing.gif

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Regarding politics in cynicism...Is there a reason why Clinton badly wanted to push in universal health care (it wasn't even a thought back then) despite failing miserably?

Sometimes, people do care for other people. As idealistic as that sounds. Whatever errors and mistakes she made, I honestly believe Hillary wants to help people.

Cynicism clouds people's judgement. It also makes them feel smart.

 

[Fat4all]

Whats with all these Clinton threads on GAF that sound doom and gloom and then when you read the OP itsfuckingnothing.gif

boredom in between Trump threads

 

[B-Dubs]

Cynicism clouds people's judgement. It also makes them feel smart.

Like, a certain amount is healthy. We should be questioning elected officials, but at the same time we should leave room to actually believe that they decide to do things because they're the right things to do. Especially when it's the simplest explanation for someone's actions.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Whats with all these Clinton threads on GAF that sound doom and gloom and then when you read the OP itsfuckingnothing.gif

They can't actually attack how she's running her campaign, or the vast majority of her policies, or who she chose as a her VP, so we get shit like this or newly conjured up conspiracy theories regarding her health.

 

[MIMIC]

How do people act like she's above criticism, MIMIC?

This entire thread is a prime example. I could understand if this were a report from FOX News or the Daily Caller or whatever, but this was an Associated Press report that once again dinged Clinton on an issue that has plagued her since forever: her trustworthiness. And whether you love her or hate her, it is an issue.

But like every other accusation leveled against her, it's dismissed as a nothing. Yes, there are claims that deserved to be dismissed (like the health controversy), but not everything is a conspiracy against her (it's either dismissed, or it ignites claims "what about so-and-so"). And clearly, this isn't a story just about "nothing".

Did any of her donors write her a check that said "I'm going to ask for something later" in the memo section? No. But does any reasonable person think that that's the type of evidence needed to make an accusation of pay-for-play?

The article itself shows times where donors received requests for help (not just sit-down meetings), but the entire thing is just dismissed because it's a knock on Hillary. And asking for direct evidence of pay-for-play is pretty much going to be impossible, and anyone who asks for that already knows that.

And people just looooovvvvvveeeeee to talk about "optics" (a word I hate using)...yet no one will acknowledge that it's a bad look and should probably stop when you have these people donating to Hillary, getting meetings (and some getting even more than that), etc. This skates dangerously close to a conflict of interest (if it isn't that already), but nobody acknowledges that. Hillary's perfect, and people are just being mean to her apparently.

But I can't pretend to be surprised. It's politics as usual. People have their corners and people have their candidates. I've already gone out of my way to voluntarily criticize my candidate of choice, but I'd die of shock if I saw a Hillary stan do the same.

 

[riotous]

no one will acknowledge that it's a bad look and should probably stop when you have these people donating to Hillary

This article isn't about donations to Hillary, or her campaign. That's part of the dismissal here.

Clinton camp's response to this was to point out how obviously some large Clinton Foundation donors are going to be the type of people the Secretary of State meets with.

There isn't just no evidence of "pay to play" here no one even has a single example of someone who donated to the Foundation, and got a meeting, that seems whatsoever sketchy. Without digging the evidence put forward might not be a "good look" but the article itself also deserves criticism.

I also don't buy this "of course you won't find evidence of pay to play" stuff... huh? The Bush administration for instance was full of DIRECT associations with companies that profited heavily from their decisions. It was right out in the open. If there's any of that going on with Clinton, I'd personally want to know about it. But I'm not going to make assumptions with zero evidence.

 

[Not]

They can't actually attack how she's running her campaign, or the vast majority of her policies, or who she chose as a her VP, so we get shit like this or newly conjured up conspiracy theories regarding her health.

Bottom of the barrel tactics. This woman really has my utmost respect to weather this constant stream of abuse for the last few decades.

 

[Valhelm]

Rampant and unwarranted cynicism is how conservatism succeeds at filling our state houses and Congress with regressive buffoons and insurgents.

How do you mean?

I think the GOP is pretty idealistic in their blind devotion to free market ideals and Christian morality.

 

[excelsiorlef]

How do you mean?

I think the GOP is pretty damn idealistic.

In that it keeps litmus test lefties who think grrr both sides at home during elections....

 

[Not]

This entire thread is a prime example. I could understand if this were a report from FOX News or the Daily Caller or whatever, but this was an Associated Press report that once again dinged Clinton on an issue that has plagued her since forever: her trustworthiness. And whether you love her or hate her, it is an issue.

But like every other accusation leveled against her, it's dismissed as a nothing. Yes, there are claims that deserved to be dismissed (like the health controversy), but not everything is a conspiracy against her (it's either dismissed, or it ignites claims "what about so-and-so"). And clearly, this isn't a story just about "nothing".

Did any of her donors write her a check that said "I'm going to ask for something later" in the memo section? No. But does any reasonable person think that that's the type of evidence needed to make an accusation of pay-for-play?

The article itself shows times where donors received requests for help (not just sit-down meetings), but the entire thing is just dismissed because it's a knock on Hillary. And asking for direct evidence of pay-for-play is pretty much going to be impossible, and anyone who asks for that already knows that.

And people just looooovvvvvveeeeee to talk about "optics" (a word I hate using)...yet no one will acknowledge that it's a bad look and should probably stop when you have these people donating to Hillary, getting meetings (and some getting even more than that), etc. This skates dangerously close to a conflict of interest (if it isn't that already), but nobody acknowledges that. Hillary's perfect, and people are just being mean to her apparently.

But I can't pretend to be surprised. It's politics as usual. People have their corners and people have their candidates. I've already gone out of my way to voluntarily criticize my candidate of choice, but I'd die of shock if I saw a Hillary stan do the same.

Dude, Hillary isn't fucking perfect. But in a dichotomous system, with the other side being so overwhelmingly worse and in fact disgustingly worse, the urge to keep going after Clinton's inadequacies seems pointless. Entirely unnecessary, even, until we can make sure that the other outcome no longer has a chance of happening. Then we can criticize all the shit she's likely to get wrong.

I understand people don't want to let her "get away" with things simply because in comparison she's so tolerable, but we'll have a chance to do all that and more after she's President.

 

[shinra-bansho]

150 meetings over 4 years is pretty sad.

No stamina. No work ethic.

 

[Debirudog]

How do you mean?

I think the GOP is pretty idealistic in their blind devotion to free market ideals and Christian morality.

I don't really think the GOP believes in christian morality and they have been using cynicism against Obama, especially with claiming how universal healthcare would be a disaster and all the negative rhetoric to take to him down.

 

[Fenderputty]

They can't actually attack how she's running her campaign, or the vast majority of her policies, or who she chose as a her VP, so we get shit like this or newly conjured up conspiracy theories regarding her health.

Or we have sour Bernie supporters who irrationally dislike Clinton and are upset their predictions that trump would easily win against their perceived lesser candidate aren't coming true.

 

[metalslimer]

The idea that pretty much all government social efforts are doomed to fail is pretty cynical.

 

[Not]

I don't really think the GOP believes in christian morality and they have been using cynicism against Obama, especially with claiming how universal healthcare would be a disaster and all the negative rhetoric to take to him down.

The GOP may not, but their base sure does.

 

[Valhelm]

In that it keeps litmus test lefties who think grrr both sides at home during elections....

Oh, I get you.

Anybody who uses the phrase "less evilism" gets major side-eye from me.

 

[B-Dubs]

150 meetings over 4 years is pretty sad.

No stamina. No work ethic.

If only 85 of those were problematic, that evens out to a meeting a week for about a year and a half. Spread that out over four years and...

 

[Veelk]

Did any of her donors write her a check that said "I'm going to ask for something later" in the memo section? No. But does any reasonable person think that that's the type of evidence needed to make an accusation of pay-for-play?

Yes. Very much yes.

We don't make accusations on what merely might have happened. What you have a right to is speculation, but that's a far cry from accusation material.

Can you even produce what favor might have possibly been asked? Or to what specific person it was done to?

The reason people dismiss you is because you don't seem to be able to substantiate your claims. I don't mean having a specific memo that demands a specific favor. But you are not able to even theorize on what it is that might have been traded.

Lets compare this to the Trump and Russia scandal. We do not have quid-quo-pro for that either. But here are specifics we do have: We know that manafort had ties to Russia. We know Trump has debts to Russia. We know that the only change to the Republican platform that Trump made was one that would have been beneficial to Russia.

From that, we can extrapolate that Russia probably has some influence over at least manafort.

On the other hand, all you have is "Hillary met with her donors." To do what? To ask for what? By whom?

Once you can atleast give a substantial theory as to what favor was made, you can't accuse anyone of anything. Not reasonably anyway.

 

[necrosis]

I'm going to vote for the one who doesn't lie and is not influenced by money.

lol

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Or we have sour Bernie supporters who irrationally dislike Clinton and are upset their predictions that trump would easily win against their perceived lesser candidate aren't coming true.

When I say "they", I also meant them. I don't understand their goals here, not when Trump is looming on the other side, and hugely conservative Supreme Court.

 

[MIMIC]

This article isn't about donations to Hillary, or her campaign. That's part of the dismissal here.

Clinton camp's response to this was to point out how obviously some large Clinton Foundation donors are going to be the type of people the Secretary of State meets with.

There isn't just no evidence of "pay to play" here no one even has a single example of someone who donated to the Foundation, and got a meeting, that seems whatsoever sketchy. Without digging the evidence put forward might not be a "good look" but the article itself also deserves criticism.

A man donated to her foundation and her campaign gave him a job at the State Department, despite zero qualifications. And then had to resign, just a mere two days after the press started asking questions.

That's pretty dang sketchy.

 

[Alucrid]

I've already gone out of my way to voluntarily criticize my candidate of choice, but I'd die of shock if I saw a Hillary stan do the same.

hillary clinton can sure be shady sometimes and this certainly doesn't help the perceived trustworthiness issue people have with her


pls post if okay mimic

 

[Korgill]

This is stupid non news. It shouldn't be shocking that people who would want to meet her might also like her enough to donate.

 

[Condom]

I don't understand the fixation on 'proof she's corrupt'. The thing is that she is pro big business and if you so dearly want to believe the donors don't help shape some policy positions then whatever man, have fun in your bubble I guess.

I mean we're talking about a LIBERAL party, of course they would do that. It's not new or weird or has anything specific to do with Hilary.

 

[Fat4all]

I don't understand the fixation on 'proof she's corrupt'. The thing is that she is pro big business and if you so dearly want to believe the donors don't help shape some policy positions then whatever man, have fun in your bubble I guess.

how dare people as for proof to accusations

:/