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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe I'm not getting something, but I read the article twice and fail to see why I should be shocked, outraged, or disappointed. Who gives a fuck? This is about what I would expect, and I fail to see anything approaching a scandal or ethical breaches.
 
Fat4all said:
how dare people as for proof to accusations

:/
Click to expand...
Her program is the proof. It's not against her ideology or whatever to do that, it's actually part of it.

In my opinion it is more proof that yes she is a liberal after all.

Now it is true that Conservatives using this as ammo should fuck right the hell off because they're the greatest political prostitutes around in this world.
 
In regards to this topic, I don't really see much to be in an uproar about.

Valhelm said:
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 Drumpf 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 Drumpf supporter.
Click to expand...

This 110%. As unfortunate as that is to say.
 
Is that number of people actually unusual for a politician?

The AP doesn't really provide context for the numbers they're presenting.
 
Can someone explain to me how the Clintons profit if someone donates to the Clinton foundation

If we're all just asking questions then I would like to ask some questions too
 
MIMIC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes that's certainly a sketchy example; at least it was an unpaid position but still sketchy. That's the kind of info I'd like to see in a new article. Or specifically brought up as you just did. We had threads about that one back in June when it came out. I wouldn't be shocked to see something else like that come out of further investigation like this; but the article in the OP has nothing new that's remotely juicy.

What I see a lot of in threads like this are people refusing to even name a specific example; for some bizarre reason instead of bringing one up (like you just did) they up and quit.

edit: And that story was pretty much brushed off here, I remember seeing a thread, but hardly any comments:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1231393&page=1
 
Not said:
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.
Click to expand...

This post needs to be on every page.

I'm extremely pro-Hillary but still think she's got some massive kinks to iron out. In the meantime, however, I don't care one bit about that stuff because Trump/The GOP are such a threat to human decency. Knock them out of the way and then we can clean up the Democratic side of the ticket.
 
MIMIC said:
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.
Click to expand...

you'd better not read poligaf from around the time when everyone was freaking out about clinton's nancy reagan comments (or any time she ever brings up israel, or any time she gives a bad answer about the emails which is literally always) because boy howdy are you gonna keel over a few dozen times

she's not even close to being a perfect candidate, but also,

1) no one is
2) she's literally running against neo-hitler
 
ironic how a legit charity organization may end up being her undoing. going to be a huge minefield once in office even if there's no wrongdoing whatsoever
 
wolfhowwl said:
Vote for the crook
Click to expand...

L7UtiWK.jpg
Click to expand...

she hasn't been found criminally culpable for any-goddamn-thing over the course of a public and sometimes political career spanning nearly 50 years. the closest thing we've got to actual "corruption" on her part is maybe switching her vote on a bankruptcy bill that never passed. thus far there is absolutely fuck all that would actually justify calling her a "crook".

see, this is exactly what i and a couple other posters keep saying: for the most part it's not that we're arguing in bad faith (and i say "for the most part" because there are certain people like Cerium who keep aggressively shitposting)

it's that you people keep beginning arguments in bad faith (or making drive-by posts like this one!) and then acting shocked when we don't just meekly stop defending our choice for president of the united states in the wake of your overwhelming wit.
 
M0nochromatic said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn't greasing palms. This is buying a ticket to a fund raiser (or donating to a charity) because it gives you a slight chance at meeting someone who might know someone who can send your email to someone. But beyond that its also just the fact that someone who's daily decisions affect the lives of lots of people (i.e. someone who can donate enough money to actually save a significant number of people from dieing of AIDs), has more influence than someone who works at a diner. That's... just life. If Hillary has to choose between giving some time to the diner worker or the guy who wants to donate a million dollars to fight AIDs, I think the millionaire is probably more prudent.

Fortunately, Hillary doesn't have to make that choice, and she meets with both types pretty frequently. She has since she was first lady. Every report I've seen from people who know or work with her supports that.
 
MIMIC said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you have for a second, the only posts I ever see of you is criticizing Hilary but when it was your candiate you made excuses. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Hilary but it doesn't seem like that's all your doing.
 
DontBeThatGuy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Amen she's not flawless but right wing media built ad supported empires over the last 25 years bashing the Clintons while she spent that time in public service and making the world a better place: it's all about the money.

It boosts ratings to bash Hillary and ad dollars follow. It's just tiring at this point but the damage is done.
 
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
Click to expand...

So more than half of the people she met with that were not part of the government ended up donating to her charity.... okay. Can someone explain the controversy here?
 
excelsiorlef said:
1)She's a woman
2)named Clinton.
Click to expand...

I also think the Media is either consciously or subconsciously trying to stay "Fair and Balanced" so you get articles like these that make something that's barely a perception problem into something illegal.

The sheer number of things Trump says, does or did do makes it seem lopsided, when it should be.
 
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
 
justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of these crony politician games you are cool with Obama getting away with because he's charming.

I actually don't care about this because half our ambassadors (people actually representing the US government in foreign lands) are likely unqualified donors that got the jobs. But at least you guys could be consistent in your outrage.
 
justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I love these posts because they are completely substanceless

Just read a headline and feel.
 
justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Well as a black person I don't know what it feels like to vote for someone who totally represents my interests. Not even the first black president represented my interests when he ran. So I don't think I'm missing out on much here.

Seriously, people act like voting against someone isn't a legit reason for voting. I look at my vote as equally a denunciation of views I despise as an endorsement of views I agree with. Thinking I should only vote for people who fill my heart with rainbows would be grossly naive.
 
justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather have a French politician run for president instead?
 
justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

like I said before, the irony is that Hillary will be the most Progressive President in US history.

the Far-Purity-Left will keep complaining about her but in the end she is running on Paid Maternity Leave, Equal Pay, better gun control, $15 Minimum Wage, an improvement on ACA (wishfully Universal Healthcare but I doubt that it will happen though)
 
justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, she's used to it by now considering they always hated her over 30 years lol.
 
excelsiorlef said:
I love these posts because they are completely substanceless

Just read a headline and feel.
Click to expand...

i especially love those posts because they're basically crack to republican politicians

like yes, random guy, please completely buy into the cynical shitty garbage we've been trying to spread regarding our political opponents for upwards of 40 years, you're just one more cog in the (alt-)left's Everything Just Sucks, Man machine that's half the reason we've had shit for sane policy advances since nixon
 
eBay Huckster said:
i especially love those posts because they're basically crack to republican politicians

like yes, random guy, please completely buy into the cynical shitty garbage we've been trying to spread regarding our political opponents for upwards of 40 years, you're just one more cog in the (alt-)left's Everything Just Sucks, Man machine that's half the reason we've had shit for sane policy advances since nixon
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
eBay Huckster said:
i especially love those posts because they're basically crack to republican politicians

like yes, random guy, please completely buy into the cynical shitty garbage we've been trying to spread regarding our political opponents for upwards of 40 years, you're just one more cog in the (alt-)left's Everything Just Sucks, Man machine that's half the reason we've had shit for sane policy advances since nixon
Click to expand...
Yeah as a random guy, my opinion of Hillary was formed in this one article. Before then I was thought she was a great trustworthy candidate but this one article has completely changed my opinion of her.
 
Valhelm said:
How do you mean?

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

I see, your cynicism doesn't extend to your evaluation of conservatism, which is a case where it's actually warranted.

The conservative sales pitch: government is corrupt and doesn't work, the highly educated are immoral and indoctrinating our kids in college, Islam is an evil religion, minorities don't help their own communities, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, transgender children have no way of understanding their own gender identity therefore the parents must be influencing them, the ACA is primarily about money not increasing the number of Americans with health insurance, the social safety net is a Democratic scheme to keep people in poverty, etc
 
MIMIC said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Should probably stop"? These meetings happened (or didn't happen, as it were) years ago.

justjohn said:
What a terrible choice people have to make. I would love to think that Clinton would be upset if she won knowing that the only reason she won was not because people liked her but her opponent was even worse, but I don't think she'll give a fuck. Everything about that woman screams disingenuous.
Click to expand...

It's actually not that terrible a choice. I know which candidate will prioritize health care, immigration reform and climate action (or hell, even *acknowledge* the necessity of the latter). I know which candidate will appoint SCOTUS justices that will uphold these, and other policies enacted by even more progressive presidents down the road, for the next 30-40 years. I know which candidate will not legitimize the feelings of bigots around the country and give their voice a national platform.

One thing I really liked about the DNC were the constant reminders of the work Hillary did before she got into politics, and the causes she's been advocating for her entire life: health care reform, women's rights, children. If I look to Trump's pre-political career (i.e. two years ago and counting) I see no such causes or social convictions, aside from the occasional "bring back the death penalty to execute the Central Park Five suspects" or racial housing discrimination. As far as disingenuous goes, it's pretty clear to me which candidate actually gives a shit about other people.
 
Debirudog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to every Clinton related scandal over the last 30 years. The only hard evidence they ever got on either of them was a splash of semen on a blue dress. That's actually a pretty good metaphor for the GOP's entire effort to sink them......
 
some people really need to stop defending this. shes secretary of state and basically the biggest donors or whatever entity pays the most gets a meeting with one of the most powerful people in the country, who has direct access to the white house. how is this not ridiculous. and stop acting like she wasn't benefiting from the charity, all of her donations were to her own charity and who knows the scale of writeoffs she took advantage of..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Online Piracy's Great Comeback (a thorough look at the state of streaming)
Opinion 
27
932
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