US Presidential Election XII

[deep]

When people give the clintons money all they get is a receipt, when people give Trump money they get to go to university

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Is it though? I mean, if they were less than forthcoming about financial information, sure, but that's clearly not the case here. We've got 30 years of the Clintons' tax returns, and they disclose all their Foundation's donors, amounts, and where the money goes.

Then there's nothing to worry about and logical argument will show that the Clinton foundation should only have positive impact on her campaign. That doesn't mean it's not something worthy of considering at first.

 

[Oregoropa]

What's the obsession with press conferences?

It's another fake controversy you're chasing. And a weird one at that...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

264 days without a major media press conference. It's not weird, actually it is weird. Presidents and candidates usually do them amirite?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

So many days without a "major" press conference because she's hiding her flash light epinephrine and large sums of Bahrainian donations.

 

[Oregoropa]

So many days without a "major" press conference because she's hiding her flash light epinephrine and large sums of Bahrainian donations.

Don't forget the catheter bag filled with hot sauce for easy pandering

 

[LuckyNumber7]

How could I forget...

 

[BVS]

264 days without a major media press conference. It's not weird, actually it is weird. Presidents and candidates usually do them amirite?

There's no precedent of having to have press conferences. She hasn't needed to, doesn't that tell you something?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Vlad n U 2]

He interprets the lack of complete information on Clinton's schedule as meaning there is no story here. Rather, it's a story in and of itself. The only access to schedules that the writers of the story had were those that came from a lawsuit, and even then those were hand picked by the State Department. Yglesias points out that they "couldn't come up with anything worse" than a few meetings that seem very positive for Clinton. Isn't that the whole point? That they picked and chose which ones were released to reflect positively on Clinton? It begs the question what else was on the schedule.

This isn't conspiratorial nonsense. Just because many of Clinton's critics, especially those on the right, are spewing nonsense about her constantly, does not mean that she is beyond criticism. There is typical politician stuff that every politician does. Clinton's issues go beyond that, while also falling short of the issues Trump has. Both things can be true.

Also, the 85 donors the AP cited donated $156 million. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION. That is a fucking massive amount.

I love Matt "actually the Nazis were mostly pretty good" Yglesias, plus other assorted opinions.

 

[bono_212]

SHE doesn't get contributions from them. It's a charity, in which she no longer is an active member, and where she receives ZERO compensation. And as of yet, no one can point to one thing that shows any impropriety happened because of donations that were given to the foundation.

OK, I mean that's fair, but we are talking about the reality that people donate to charities to grease wheels, so let's not pretend that anyone donating to the Clinton Foundation isn't hoping for a favor or two. Hence, I'm a little uncomfortable with it.

I have no problem with the Clinton Foundation, nor how much money it takes in, if it's really such a well run organization.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Lesbian Farmers

now we're talking.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

264 days without a major media press conference. It's not weird, actually it is weird. Presidents and candidates usually do them amirite?

Why do anything when all you have to do is remain silent and let the clown car other candidate continue to light his own campaign on fire?

Worked like a charm thus far.

 

[Oregoropa]

Why do anything when all you have to do is remain silent and let the clown car other candidate continue to light his own campaign on fire?

Worked like a charm thus far.

Never mind press conferences. Hillary is basically in hiding. Not sure when she had her last event. Doing fundraisers with Justin Timberlake instead.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[namkcuR]

Hillary is basically in hiding. Not sure when she had her last event. Doing fundraisers with Justin Timberlake instead.

View attachment 10847


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

In hiding? This is the worst job of hiding in the history of hiding then. She's on national television every single day.

 

[DaveC]

like, honestly. all the spotlight now is on trump cratering and it looks to be for the foreseeable future. why would she even bother? she'd be an idiot.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

See previous post

 

[DaveC]

great minds

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Furthermore, if she manages to accomplish even half the things on the DNC platform($15 minimum wage, tuition free stage college, gun control measures, public option, to name a few), it would be worth putting up with a more interventionist foreign policy than you would ideally want.

I liked your post, but none of the proposals you mentioned are going to be things that will actually happen (mostly due to Republican control of the house) and her war hawk stuff will happen (with Republicans lending a hand when she needs it).

I never believed Bernie could climb over that blockade either, but did figure that it was possible for him to actually get thousands protesting in the streets and maybe that could lead to some national headway for, say, a minimum wage raise of some sort since there would bound to be Republican constituents in Kansas desperately wanting to be able to have a living wage, etc. His energy and enthusiasm of his supporters at least made some of those things a faint possibility whereas Clinton is bound to get stonewalled since she lacks even that improbable opportunity.

And it was revealing when I read an article following the Clinton campaign months back about how she and her close confidants spend a lot of time discussing whether or not Republicans will be willing to work with her. Obviously, it's THE question about whether or not she can get anything done, but with basically every prognosticator on the right, left and logical side of the equation saying how Republicans have had nothing to lose from these tactics, there's no reason they're really going to stop a winning strategy anytime soon, especially when they could lose a primary for lending out a helping hand. I find it egotistical and absurd that she thinks Obama didn't want to play ball nicely with these clowns when he pretty much did the exact opposite for years and to no avail.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I also wonder why those who claim no allegiance to either main candidate use this as a stick to beat Clinton rather than Trump. I get why Trump fans do it, even if it's disingenuous. But if you're non-aligned it's a stick to beat both. Focusing on Clinton opens up the implication of sexism.

It opens up the implication, but it wouldn't be truthful.

I agree that the criticism over Clinton in terms of both foundation and political fundraising speaks more about our political environment than it does about her, but I think the reason people on the far left want to open up these topics are because:

1) We shouldn't just elect a Democratic President and call it a day, especially when one has dubious environmental goals (pro-fracking, big oil company funding), a history of war hawk policy support and a cozy relationship with Wall Street. Nobody from the left is trying to implicate her and not Trump, rather they are trying to have a discussion about the next President of the United States and why we need to be ready to protest and do whatever we can before we suddenly let policies slide by that are antithetical to the goals of liberals.

2) We had a candidate in Bernie Sanders that didn't have any of this similar baggage. It's not about sour grapes. It's about the fact that we can elect a leader without this sort of stuff. I mean, hell, Obama was against the Iraq War, certainly not a military hawk, and as someone with very little experience in DC, hardly had the connections to receive foreign money to his foundations, etc. So, there's a massive difference between what Obama was in 2008/is now and what Hillary Clinton could be when she's elected President.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

There just isn't any proof of wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation.

There never is really going to be concrete evidence, nor should we ever expect it, but at the same time, I bet nobody in this thread thinks that Clinton didn't do something for somebody in one country as Secretary of State and then get a donation around that time because of it. That's what we would expect from this sort of politics and Clinton clearly isn't above playing in that battlefield.

But really, it's not like Huma (who working for both the government and the charity was more than likely the person organizing the timing of all of this) was really going to write e-mails to Clinton about any of this stuff like, "Can you approve this weapons transfer so they will then donate tomorrow at 1 PM?" and the like. Nobody is that stupid and there likely isn't a single e-mail that even hints at that sort of thing.

So, your assertion is 100% right in the main and 100% wrong in the truth given we know that the evidence would never exist in the first place. Honestly, by this logic that she isn't culpable because there's no evidence, nobody in Congress could be proved to be doing anything for their donors. The paper trail just does not exist for any of them because nobody is that stupid.

In a way, it would be hypocritical to suggest that Republican congressman are bought and sold for and that the Clinton Foundation isn't.

 

[namkcuR]

I liked your post, but none of the proposals you mentioned are going to be things that will actually happen (mostly due to Republican control of the house) and her war hawk stuff will happen (with Republicans lending a hand when she needs it).

You might be right, but I will hold out hope for at least some of it. Foolish maybe, but I don't care. I don't want to walk into a new Democratic presidency feeling defeated from day one just because of the GOP House.

 

[namkcuR]

There never is really going to be concrete evidence, nor should we ever expect it, but at the same time, I bet nobody in this thread thinks that Clinton didn't do something for somebody in one country as Secretary of State and then get a donation around that time because of it. That's what we would expect from this sort of politics and Clinton clearly isn't above playing in that battlefield.

But really, it's not like Huma (who working for both the government and the charity was more than likely the person organizing the timing of all of this) was really going to write e-mails to Clinton about any of this stuff like, "Can you approve this weapons transfer so they will then donate tomorrow at 1 PM?" and the like. Nobody is that stupid and there likely isn't a single e-mail that even hints at that sort of thing.

So, your assertion is 100% right in the main and 100% wrong in the truth given we know that the evidence would never exist in the first place. Honestly, by this logic that she isn't culpable because there's no evidence, nobody in Congress could be proved to be doing anything for their donors. The paper trail just does not exist for any of them because nobody is that stupid.

In a way, it would be hypocritical to suggest that Republican congressman are bought and sold for and that the Clinton Foundation isn't.

Isn't this how things work though? When a person or state gives a lot of money to a politician or charity or other organization and then at a later date asks a favor of that same politician or charity or other organization and gets denied that favor, they could be put off of giving any more money. This is how the world works. I wish it wasn't, but it is. I just think it's silly the way the GOP want to paint this as some singular, unique offense that she's committed.

 

[Salome]

2) We had a candidate in Bernie Sanders that didn't have any of this similar baggage.

Out of curiosity (I honestly don't know), did they ever figure out where large portion of funds for the Sanders campaign came from?

 

[Popmartijn]

Isn't this how things work though? When a person or state gives a lot of money to a politician or charity or other organization and then at a later date asks a favor of that same politician or charity or other organization and gets denied that favor, they could be put off of giving any more money. This is how the world works.

But it seems, that's not how it works. From what I understand, the emails show that not many favours were given. At least, that's what I gather from the article below.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

A sports executive who was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and whose firm paid Bill Clinton millions of dollars in consulting fees wanted help getting a visa for a British soccer player with a criminal past.

The crown prince of Bahrain, whose government gave more than $50,000 to the Clintons’ charity and who participated in its glitzy annual conference, wanted a last-minute meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

U2 rocker and philanthropist Bono, also a regular at foundation events, wanted high-level help broadcasting a live link to the International Space Station during concerts.

In each case, according to emails released Monday from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, the requests were directed to Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and confidante, Huma Abedin, who engaged with other top aides and sometimes Clinton herself about how to respond.

The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting.

The article mentions that the sports executive and Bono did not get their favour granted, but the crown prince from Bahrein did get his meeting. So that money can buy you access is certainly true. That's standard operating procedure in the political world, openly mentioned by congressmen, senators and presidents. I believe it was then-candidate George W. Bush who mentioned that people donating more than a certain amount to his campaign would get a meeting with him. The Supreme Court also doesn't think buying access is such a big deal. They said so when they overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. He had granted access and arranged meetings for donors with state officials and the Supreme Court sees nothing illegal in that. (Of course, just because the Supreme Court says so doesn't make it alright, see the Citizens United case)
About the only thing that makes the situation with the Clinton Foundation a little bit different is that in the other cases I've mentioned (congressmen, senators, presidents) it's done by elected officials. When she was Secretary of State Clinton was not an elected official (but an appointed cabinet member). Still, I don't think that would make a huge difference.

Will the Republicans eventually find something on Hillary? I think they will. Just like with her husband, they keep on pulling on new straws, so they might eventually find something completely unrelated to what they were searching out for. This 'scandal' about the Clinton Foundation came out of the 'scandal' that Hillary had a private email server while being Secretary of State, which came out of the 'scandal' that there was an attack in Libya during which the US ambassador (plus several other US citizens) died.

Still, the fact that the other candidate is probably bought by Russia, evades taxes, violates federal election law, etc. is apparently no disgrace.

 

[Salome]

Still, the fact that the other candidate is probably bought by Russia, evades taxes, violates federal election law, etc. is apparently no disgrace.

Trump is only held to the Trump Standard.
Archaeologists are still digging to find that one.

 

[Axver]

It opens up the implication, but it wouldn't be truthful.

I agree that the criticism over Clinton in terms of both foundation and political fundraising speaks more about our political environment than it does about her, but I think the reason people on the far left want to open up these topics are because:

1) We shouldn't just elect a Democratic President and call it a day, especially when one has dubious environmental goals (pro-fracking, big oil company funding), a history of war hawk policy support and a cozy relationship with Wall Street. Nobody from the left is trying to implicate her and not Trump, rather they are trying to have a discussion about the next President of the United States and why we need to be ready to protest and do whatever we can before we suddenly let policies slide by that are antithetical to the goals of liberals.

2) We had a candidate in Bernie Sanders that didn't have any of this similar baggage. It's not about sour grapes. It's about the fact that we can elect a leader without this sort of stuff. I mean, hell, Obama was against the Iraq War, certainly not a military hawk, and as someone with very little experience in DC, hardly had the connections to receive foreign money to his foundations, etc. So, there's a massive difference between what Obama was in 2008/is now and what Hillary Clinton could be when she's elected President.

#2 is irrelevant. Let's move on, especially if you say this isn't about sour grapes. That particular debate, for better or worse, has concluded.

#1 is valid. I'm just not sure the presidential race is the place to have the discussion. The candidates are selected, and given the breathtaking threat posed by the Republican nominee - as I have said before, an individual more dangerous than any candidate for head of state or government in a Western democracy since WWII - it's time to circle the wagons. The better place to achieve left-wing objectives for the next four years is at the state and congressional levels. Pick your battles, you know?

Also, you really do jump between labels sometimes. Are you liberal? Progressive? Left-wing? These are rather different things. I ask in part because I - as a green social democrat - have no interest in achieving the goals of economic liberals, which I would suggest are fairly harmonious with Clinton's platform.

 

[BVS]

Never mind press conferences. Hillary is basically in hiding. Not sure when she had her last event. Doing fundraisers with Justin Timberlake instead.

View attachment 10847


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Shit son, you have completely lost it. Just imagine if you had spent as much time and energy looking at facts and reality as you did catheter bags, epipens, and how Mexicans are rapists you might have chosen a candidate that wasn't so toxic that the other candidate can "hide" and still be kicking his ass.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[bono_212]

some national headway for, say, a minimum wage raise of some sort since there would bound to be Republican constituents in Kansas desperately wanting to be able to have a living wage, etc.

Not to get off the subject but can someone explain to me where this magical 15/hr number came from? Honestly, in Kansas of all states to point out, 15 is far more than a living wage. I'm all for an increase, but this flat 15 seems like more trouble than it's worth, and seems to be impeding the push to fix the problem.

 

[womanfish]

Just a side-note question. Is RealClearPolitics right leaning? I find it very odd, that they seem to pick and choose the polls they include in their averages.

They consistently include the much questioned LA Times poll, but they don't include the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll that puts Clinton up by 12.

Just find it odd, didn't know if they were known to have a bias.

 

[Diemen]

Not to get off the subject but can someone explain to me where this magical 15/hr number came from? Honestly, in Kansas of all states to point out, 15 is far more than a living wage. I'm all for an increase, but this flat 15 seems like more trouble than it's worth, and seems to be impeding the push to fix the problem.

$15/hr doesn't really amount to all that much, though, even in Kansas. After taxes (not including health insurance) you're looking at maybe $2000/mo, $24k/yr. Deduct health insurance (let's be generous and say $100/month), rent (a generous $500), utilities ($250), car insurance ($100) groceries ($200), etc (potentially costly stuff like car payments, student loan payments, etc). If you're single? Sure, you might end up putting a little away each month and maybe even escaping the paycheck to paycheck grind after a while. If you have a kid (or kids) and have to add child care on top of that while you're working full time (not to mention the other additional costs children bring into the equation)? $15/hr begins to look a lot more like a completely reasonable and justifiable minimum wage. Even in Kansas.

 

[Oregoropa]

The Reuters poll changed its methodology recently to get rid of the category of 'undecided voters'. Instead they assigned voters to a candidate based on the phone answers they were giving. Pretty arbitrary. Maybe that's why they dropped it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference