Support NeoGAF

[KingV]

Wouldn't that show a bias of deliberately avoiding meeting with donors?

Then shut down the foundation. It's very hard to be a public government figure and a public corporate/charity figure at the same time without it looking shady.

 

[SirClinksAlot]

Ah, judging someone by where they're from. Good move there.

Jesus you guys missed the fucking joke. KingV is ready cast Hillary as corrupt just like right wing politicians point to Obama and go OMG CHICAGO. The point is use actual fucking facts when casting corruption claims.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

He didn't appoint him though.

Of course not. Crooked Barack had a close political ally appoint Fernando to the position (to cover Crooked Barack's tracks) despite his lack of relevant experience. The fact that Fernando was a big fundraiser for Barack Obama is just a coincidence!

 

[Spoiled Milk]

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..

We know exactly how much because she puts it on her taxes. You are not allowed to say "who knows?!?!" and not look this up when the information is freely available. She and Bill deducted a million dollars from their taxes due to a million dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation. You can only WRITE OFF MONEY YOU HAVE ALREADY SPENT. So if the Clintons don't take any salary from the foundation, THEY HAVE LOST THAT MONEY.

Once again: how do the Clintons profit from the Clinton Foundation?

 

[KHarvey16]

Read the article, it explains how the board was staffed.

I did read it. I don't remember anyone mentioning hard requirements other than security clearance, but there was direct mention that diversity of background was desired.

 

[KingV]

Of course not. Crooked Barack had a close political ally appoint Fernando to the position despite his lack of relevant experience. The fact that Fernando was a big fundraiser for Barack Obama is just a coincidence!

As long as we both agree that Rajiv Fernando had no business being appointed to that position.

Occam's razor would suggest that the person who appointed him is who you should blame for doing it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You think Obama appears corrupt? News to me.

You can make anyone "appear" corrupt, because that's an empty accusation backed by nothing but what you personally view as corrupt.

That was my point. Basing anything on an "appearance" of corruption is nonsense.

 

[Link]

Might as well post this again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angelina_Jolie&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#UNHCR_ambassadorship

In the following months, Jolie returned to Cambodia for two weeks and met with Afghan refugees in Pakistan, where she donated $1 million in response to an international UNHCR emergency appeal,[94][95] the largest donation UNHCR had ever received from a private individual.[96] She covered all costs related to her missions and shared the same rudimentary working and living conditions as UNHCR field staff on all of her visits.[92] Jolie was named a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador at UNHCR headquarters in Geneva on August 27, 2001.

Clearly, the UN is corrupt and participating in disgusting pay to play practices. Shut it down!

Or learn how the real world works, people.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

As long as we both agree that Rajiv Fernando had no business being appointed to that position.

Occam's razor would suggest that the person who appointed him is who you should blame for doing it.

Why her? Buck stops at the top. I don't think we should let Crooked Barack off the hook for doing something that looks so corrupt just because he was smart enough to set up a fall girl to do the appointment for him. Fact of the matter is, Barack picked the person who picked Fernando, and Fernando raised half a million dollars for Barack. I think that's pretty corrupt looking!

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Then shut down the foundation. It's very hard to be a public government figure and a public corporate/charity figure at the same time without it looking shady.

You view some made up appearance of corruption as being more important than helping millions in poor countries?

Nice priorities

 

[Blader]

Ya know, this election is the absolute worst for Independent voters, like myself. If there was ever the need for a prominent third party, it would be now. These two running for office are just so... ugghh...

Pack it up, send the woman and children out on the escape pods first; it's all going down...

There's nothing stopping you from working to build up your local independent, libertarian, green, etc. candidates in between elections. 75 days before the election is a bit too late to bemoan the lack of third-party options.

In any event, I'd encourage you, if you haven't already, to check out Michael Bloomberg's DNC speech. It's aimed directly at independent voters like yourself and I think/hope you'd find it interesting to think about.

 

[NimbusD]

What is the correct number of meetings w donors to take? Which politicians don't meet with donors somewhat regularly?

 

[Link]

You view some made up appearance of corruption as being more important than helping millions in poor countries?

Nice priorities

This is what the far left has become. Can't wait for this election to be over so they can go back under their rocks.

 

[KHarvey16]

Why her? Buck stops at the top. I don't think we should let Crooked Barack off the hook for doing something that looks so corrupt just because he was smart enough to set up a fall girl to do the appointment for him. Fact of the matter is, Barack picked the person who picked Fernando, and Fernando raised half a million dollars for Barack. I think that's pretty corrupt looking!

Either he explicitly approved of her generating a perception of corruption or his incompetence made him blind to it. How can we accept either possibility?!

 

[Slurpy2k20]

You're better than this.

Really, is he? Why? I've seen zero evidence in his posts that he "better than this". That's exactly who he is and his level of discourse.

 

[Blader]

This is what the far left has become. Can't wait for this election to be over so they can go back under their rocks.

Not become. The far left has always been in favor of the burn-it-down approach for preserving ideological purity.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Either he explicitly approved of her generating a perception of corruption or his incompetence made him blind to it. How can we accept either possibility?!

It's just too bad that the last election was a choice between a corrupt or incompetent political criminal, or an evil, uncharismatic, robotic one percenter. Truly the worst election in modern times. Let's just shut it down and start over!

 

[stonesak]

You view some made up appearance of corruption as being more important than helping millions in poor countries?

Nice priorities

Like Haiti?

 

[Cornbread78]

There's nothing stopping you from working to build up your local independent, libertarian, green, etc. candidates in between elections. 75 days before the election is a bit too late to bemoan the lack of third-party options.

In any event, I'd encourage you, if you haven't already, to check out Michael Bloomberg's DNC speech. It's aimed directly at independent voters like yourself and I think/hope you'd find it interesting to think about.

I'll take a look, but the main problem is: "prominent third party," which just isn't going to happen in this country anytime soon, every time someone takes ideas from both sides (John MCain, Scott Brown, etc) they can never ingratiate themselves enough to sway voters from either party..

A true independent leader is needed to cut through the party BS and actually serve the country rather than their respective party's platform...

 

[Aaronrules380]

I'll take a look, but the main problem is: "prominent third party," which just isn't going to happen in this country anytime soon, every time someone takes ideas from both sides (John MCain, Scott Brown, etc) they can never ingratiate themselves enough to sway voters from either party..

A true independent leader is needed to cut through the party BS and actually serve the country rather than their respective party's platform...

Why do you assume a third party would be any different?

 

[Blader]

I'll take a look, but the main problem is: "prominent third party," which just isn't going to happen in this country anytime soon, every time someone takes ideas from both sides (John MCain, Scott Brown, etc) they can never ingratiate themselves enough to sway voters from either party..

A true independent leader is needed to cut through the party BS and actually serve the country rather than their respective party's platform...

As has been pointed out before, the problem with getting a prominent third party into a presidential election is that the winner would still be chosen by one of the two major parties. If Gary Johnson were to somehow clinch a plurality of the popular vote but still fall short of the 270 electoral votes, the decision would go to the House of Representatives -- which, under Republican control, would then pick Donald Trump as president even if, in this scenario, he was third in the popular and electoral vote.

You'd need to completely redo the whole system from top to bottom to change that, and that's impossible. There is no amount of political capital available that can drastically change how presidential elections are held in this country. The best thing that independent and third-party voters can do, other than campaigning for candidates at a local and state level, is to push their policies into one of the major party's platforms, as Bernie's supporters did with the DNC this year.

And finally, I don't know if I'd hold up John McCain as an example of someone taking ideas from both sides. He is and was pretty solidly Republican, just a moderate one compared to the crazies that swept the GOP two years later. Bill Clinton is a better example of someone taking a centrist approach (and successfully, at that) to the presidency.

 

[Cornbread78]

Why do you assume a third party would be any different?

I hold no assumptions; I just wish there was another option as a candidate for the presidency.

As has been pointed out before, the problem with getting a prominent third party into a presidential election is that the winner would still be chosen by one of the two major parties. If Gary Johnson were to somehow clinch a plurality of the popular vote but still fall short of the 270 electoral votes, the decision would go to the House of Representatives -- which, under Republican control, would then pick Donald Trump as president even if, in this scenario, he was third in the popular and electoral vote.

You'd need to completely redo the whole system from top to bottom to change that, and that's impossible. There is no amount of political capital available that can drastically change how presidential elections are held in this country. The best thing that independent and third-party voters can do, other than campaigning for candidates at a local and state level, is to push their policies into one of the major party's platforms, as Bernie's supporters did with the DNC this year.

And finally, I don't know if I'd hold up John McCain as an example of someone taking ideas from both sides. He is and was pretty solidly Republican, just a moderate one compared to the crazies that swept the GOP two years later. Bill Clinton is a better example of someone taking a centrist approach (and successfully, at that) to the presidency.

Excellent insight into it. I hold no answers into how to fix it all but something needs to change somehow.

 

[Aaronrules380]

I hold no assumptions; I just wish there was another option as a candidate for the presidency.



Excellent insight into it. I hold no answers into how to fix it all but something needs to change somehow.

If there was another viable option, then any issues of corruption would apply to them just as much as the current ones, so you'd probably just be complaining about no 4th option. The reality is there will never be a perfect candidate, or one with no dirt on them

 

[Slurpy2k20]

OMG the most corrupt foundation on the face of the earth, run by the most corrupt person in existence, SHUT IT DOWN IMMEDIATELY

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...Hillary-Clinton-should-point-to-it-with-pride

 

[Fenderputty]

remember gaf: if you criticize clinton then you're a republican shill who is anti women and a misogynist.

Ohh here comes the persecution complex. How cute.

 

[pigeon]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting

Tuesday afternoon, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press released the results of a review of State Department appointment data that they used to make some striking claims about Hillary Clinton’s schedule as secretary of state.

According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions.

Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Here’s the bottom line: Serving as secretary of state while your husband raises millions of dollars for a charitable foundation that is also a vehicle for your family’s political ambitions really does create a lot of space for potential conflicts of interest. Journalists have, rightly, scrutinized the situation closely. And however many times they take a run at it, they don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would....

The stark fact highlighted in the AP’s tweet and social share card is, for starters, totally false.

If you read that and thought to yourself that it seems wrong for the secretary of state to be spending so much time in meetings with Clinton Foundation donors rather than talking to US government officials and representatives of foreign countries, then you are in luck. To generate the 154 figure, the AP excluded from the denominator all employees of any government, whether US or foreign. Then when designing social media collateral, it just left out that part, because the truth is less striking and shareable.

Even so, the number 154 is preposterously low, as Clinton would routinely meet dozens of civil society leaders, journalists, and others on any one of her many foreign trips as secretary of state. In the campaign’s official response to the AP, they argue that the data is “cherry picked” from a “limited subset” of her schedule.

But regardless of that, the AP’s social media claims are simply false — ignoring well over 1,000 official meetings with foreign leaders and an unknown number of meetings with domestic US officials.

There's more at the link.

 

[MHWilliams]

You'd need to completely redo the whole system from top to bottom to change that, and that's impossible. There is no amount of political capital available that can drastically change how presidential elections are held in this country. The best thing that independent and third-party voters can do, other than campaigning for candidates at a local and state level, is to push their policies into one of the major party's platforms, as Bernie's supporters did with the DNC this year.

The issue is two-fold, given that our electoral system isn't changing anytime soon. The first is that third-party candidates generally don't get huge pushes at the state and local level. The second is that once you've pushed your platform onto the more traditional candidate, then you have to actually vote for them and the rhetoric prior to this point can potentially blunt that from happening. It hasn't been a problem in this election - 90 percent of Sanders supporters will vote Clinton - but given a more contentious election, it could be. Then you also have to hope whoever you vote in has the legislative support to enact those policies, which brings us back to state and local.

The short of it is: please vote state and local. All the time. Even outside of presidential election years.

 

[Veelk]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting



There's more at the link.

And it turns out to be fucking nothing. Again.

Will Hillary Clinton's corruption be revealed at the next innocuous event turned media conspiracy?

Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z.

 

[Hazmat]

And it turns out to be fucking nothing. Again.

Will Hillary Clinton's corruption be revealed at the next innocuous event turned media conspiracy?

Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z.

No one has ever tied my contempt for some aspects of the modern political climate to the reason that I couldn't stand DBZ. This really made me laugh.

 

[KingV]

It's just too bad that the last election was a choice between a corrupt or incompetent political criminal, or an evil, uncharismatic, robotic one percenter. Truly the worst election in modern times. Let's just shut it down and start over!

60% unfavorably ratings ands 67% of voters saying your untrustworthy doesn't just come up from nowhere.
Obama has just as much heat thrown his way, and yet a slim majority of Americans see him as honest and trustworthy.

It doesn't hold water to me to say that it's because he's a black male and she's a white woman, or that it's because of a years long campaign of disinformation. Obama has had years of Republicans calling him corrupt too, but the complaints don't stick because they don't add up with any corroborating evidence.

Hillarys public perception is her own. There is a smear campaign, yes, but the smears hold weight because of how she conducts herself. I think it's a combination of meeting with donors to an external organization she helped found, her sort of non-commital way of communicating policy preferences, white lies about the email scandal, inexplicable things like Rajiv Fernando, and a number of outright false statements about her personal story and events that have occurred in her life.

It's ridiculous to suggest she never lies, and has always been a paragon of virtue and honesty. People can disagree whether any of that stuff matters in terms of voting, but she had a major role in creating her own personal perception.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

60% unfavorably ratings ands 67% of voters saying your untrustworthy doesn't just come up from nowhere.
Obama has just as much heat thrown his way, and yet a slim majority of Americans see him as honest and trustworthy.

It doesn't hold water to me to say that it's because he's a black male and she's a white woman, or that it's because of a years long campaign of disinformation. Obama has had years of Republicans calling him corrupt too, but the complaints don't stick because they don't add up with any corroborating evidence.

Hillarys public perception is her own. There is a smear campaign, yes, but the smears hold weight because of how she conducts herself. I think it's a combination of meeting with donors to an external organization she helped found, her sort of non-commital way of communicating policy preferences, white lies about the email scandal, inexplicable things like Rajiv Fernando, and a number of outright false statements about her personal story and events that have occurred in her life.

It's ridiculous to suggest she never lies, and has always been a paragon of virtue and honesty. People can disagree whether any of that stuff matters in terms of voting, but she had a major role in creating her own personal perception.

Woah, man. I didn't say, like, any of that! Sure you quoted the right person?

 

[Debirudog]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting



There's more at the link.

Vox is pro-hillary tho!!!

 

[shadowsdarknes]

remember gaf: if you criticize clinton then you're a republican shill who is anti women and a misogynist.

You get asked to back up your statements and this was your response?

 

[ScatheZombie]

I mentioned this earlier, but I'm still constantly surprised that almost no one is talking about the fact that one of the people supposedly paying Clinton for access was Donald Trump himself.

Even if you consider what is essentially politics-as-usual as some sort of damning corruption ring, the other candidate also participated in the same god damn system which makes this entire 'controversy' a wash.

 

[Blader]

60% unfavorably ratings ands 67% of voters saying your untrustworthy doesn't just come up from nowhere.

What do you make of the fact that those numbers are flipped in almost the complete opposite direction when she's actually on the job (e.g. 60something approval ratings as senator or secretary of state)?

It doesn't hold water to me to say that it's because he's a black male and she's a white woman, or that it's because of a years long campaign of disinformation.

I think you're underselling it a little. Any voter today who is 24 years old or younger has literally never lived in an America where Republicans weren't blasting Hillary as corrupt and awful and whatever else. It doesn't really matter how accurate any of those claims actually are, if you grow up in a media environment that fosters an echo chamber of faux-corruption claims at Hillary, then how do you not absorb that? How does that not, right off the bat, predispose you into thinking she's an untrustworthy liar?

 

[BoosterDuck]

remember gaf: if you criticize clinton then you're a republican shill who is anti women and a misogynist.

I'm a Republican shill and anti-woman and misogynist but I still believe Hillary is the second best candidate this election. Behind Bernie

Now excuse me while I go do Republican shill anti-woman misogynist things.

 

[remist]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting



There's more at the link.

I take the point about the specific examples of favors in the article being relatively banal. I dont think the AP was misleading about the fact that this is a subset of nongovermental meetings. That was all contextualized in the article and it includes the clinton camp response. He seems to be going off twitter headlines and title cards which have limited space to convey the subject of the article.

 

[Blader]

I take the point about the specific examples of favors in the article being relatively banal. I dont think the AP was misleading about the fact that this is a subset of nongovermental meetings. That was all contextualized in the article and it includes the clinton camp response. He seems to be going off twitter headlines and title cards which have limited space to convey the subject of the article.

Eliminating context for the sake of punchier headlines due to Twitter character limits is not misleading readers?

 

[remist]

Eliminating context for the sake of punchier headlines due to Twitter character limits is not misleading readers?

If it was purposeful. Yes. But you can't fit the full context into a tweet. It's up to readers to read and get the full information. Headlines are just meant to give a rough idea of the subject matter.

 

[googleplex]

Then shut down the foundation. It's very hard to be a public government figure and a public corporate/charity figure at the same time without it looking shady.

Shut down an A Rated charitable foundation that helps millions because some people can't get their facts straight or keep their bias in check?


The Fuck?

Everything wrong with the far left in one post.

 

[pigeon]

I dont think the AP was misleading about the fact that this is a subset of nongovermental meetings. That was all contextualized in the article and it includes the clinton camp response. He seems to be going off twitter headlines and title cards which have limited space to convey the subject of the article.

If your headlines and title cards are deeply misleading, then you are misleading the public.

Here's the AP tweet:

BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.

Leaving out the fact that they removed EVERY ACTUAL WORK MEETING SHE HAD from the list of meetings is below a Fox News level of data presentation. Be real.

I am astonished about your willingness to argue that it's fine to deceive people as long as you have fine print in the article explaining that you were lying.

 

[digdug2k]

Eliminating context for the sake of punchier headlines is not misleading readers?

FTFY. Twitter character limits have nothing to do with the headline they chose.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

If your headlines and title cards are deeply misleading, then you are misleading the public.

Here's the AP tweet:



Leaving out the fact that they removed EVERY ACTUAL WORK MEETING SHE HAD from the list of meetings is below a Fox News level of data presentation. Be real.

I am astonished about your willingness to argue that it's fine to deceive people as long as you have fine print in the article explaining that you were lying.

To be fair, remist is a nazi

 

[Debirudog]

The Fuck?

Everything wrong with the far left in one post.

The far left it seems...doesn't want to do good but look good.

 

[Armaros]

The far left it seems...doesn't want to do good but look good.

ive stated elsewhere, but the far left want to 'feel' good over doing good.

Feels over Reals i suppose.

 

[remist]

If your headlines and title cards are deeply misleading, then you are misleading the public.

Here's the AP tweet:



Leaving out the fact that they removed EVERY ACTUAL WORK MEETING SHE HAD from the list of meetings is below a Fox News level of data presentation. Be real.

I am astonished about your willingness to argue that it's fine to deceive people as long as you have fine print in the article explaining that you were lying.

The tweet is definitely poorly worded and criticism of that is fair, but that the actual content gave the full context is whats important imo.

To be fair, remist is a nazi

Eh. Ill assume there is some point thats over my head that im not getting.

 

[Armaros]

The tweet is definitely poorly worded and criticism of that is fair, but that the actual content gave the full context is whats important imo.

So you support clickbait?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I will literally fight anyone who suggests shutting down the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Aaronrules380]

The tweet is definitely poorly worded and criticism of that is fair, but that the actual content gave the full context is whats important imo.

The problem is that an increasing number of people won't ever look at the actual article, and will only see the tweet, and there's no way the AP isn't aware of that

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

Typical Clinton smear, all about optics. Something that might look bad if you twist it just the right way for a clickbaity headline. No evidence of actual wrongdoing though.