DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on April 18, 2015, 01:17:38 PM
-
It's been brought to our attention that Hillary isn't in this (the Presidential race) for the money, its for the power. And that's absolutely correct. What's painfully hypocritical however, as Krauthammer points out, is that one of her primary talking points is to "take unaccountable big money out of politics". This is a rather obscene concept, considering that her supporters intend to raise $2.5 billion for 2016 alone and that the Clinton Foundation is one of the most formidable machines ever devised for extracting money from the rich, the powerful and the unsavory.
-
Naturally anyone that would donate to Hillary would be unsavory to you.
Krauthammer is such a tool.
-
No more unsavory than you'd consider anyone donating to any Republican ::)
-
With 2 billion, you could found a University.
A good one.
I wish I could vote in a president who would raise two billion and use it on something better than a publicity campaign.
-
He would not get elected, because no matter how well the money was spent, his donation would be called a "stunt" by his opponent, and there would be testimony that the money was not being spent properly and blah blah blah.
In the UK campaigning is short, limited to under three months, with no campaigning allowed. The amount spent on campaigns is also limited.
The solution to making this country a successful democracy is by passing serious campaign reform laws. Public financing would be very useful. TV and radio stations should be forced to provide air time in return for their licenses.
-
Is this our own fault for accepting the situation as it is?
-
I suppose that we are responsible for the mess that our political system has become. It is devilishly hard to change even the silliest aspects of out system, because a society of special interested people grown up around the system, and they have a lot of power. For example, the Electoral College is a terrible and anti democratic idea, but there are people in tiny states that actually should have a tiny impact on the nation (like Wyoming) that do not want to give it up.There are people who want to be electors, and giving your followers the job is an ideal patronage thing, since it costs nothing and has no real effect who the elector is, since he is sworn to vote as the system dictates. It will take us ages to legalize pot even though a majority of the people want it, because the cops, the people who make the pot tests, the private prisons all depend on pot being illegal.
We have the worst system that we can tolerate, basically.
-
According to a most recent report:
Records show that Bill’s earnings from appearance fees — both foreign and domestic — spiked at $17 million in 2012, Hillary’s last year at State.
During Hillary’s four-year stint as secretary of state, the ex-president earned about $48 million of a $105?million speaking haul amassed between 2001 and 2013.
More than half of the $48 million was paid by companies in China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the Cayman Islands, among others.
The author writes that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”
------------------------------------------------------------
But its the GOP being bought and payed for ::) But at least the most ecent revelation, as expressed by our good socialist professor, is that "who the hell cares?" So what if she gets donations......from all types of sources, both domestic and foreign. The important part is that once she's managed to fool the electorate, its how she functions as a President that counts. So, whatever she has to say or do or accept in donations, regardless of the source, or even if its legal for that matter, that's what's required. Ends justify the means
You know, it wouldn't be so bad, if others were more honest, like our professor. What's truly hypocritical however is how the GOP gets painted & condemned as some purchased arm of whatever major donors were behind them, while Dems like Hillary, get a complete pass for the very exact thing. Supposedly they're not getting payed off. Apparently they have some super power that the GOP doesn't
-
There are only two parties. Most of the oligarchy vastly prefers the GOP, but there is always the possibility that the Democrats could win. They can get maybe 80% of what they want by buying a Republican, but maybe only 30% by buying a Democrat. So they contribute to both sides. There are actually some wealthy people who have visions for the country beyond making themselves extremely wealthy.
30% is better than 0%.
-
The infamous, never to be seen "oligarchy" is supposedly the entity that pays for who they want running things. You can't have it both ways, where if a Democrat is raking in a gazillion dollars in donations, including highly questionable, if not illegal, foreign sources, you can't claim that their's is ok, while the GOP is under some nefarious mandate, based on your pulling it out of your arse opinion of %'s
But I have to admire the transparent double standard, now being applied to defend Hillary. Uber rich people donating to Republicans = evil oligarchy member, simply in it to become richer. Uber rich people donating to Democrats = Perfectly sane person, simply with visions of what this country could be. Quite amazing to witness
-
All you have to do to find out who the Oligarchy members are is to look through who is on the Board of Directors of the S&P 500. Anyone who is not some sort of obvious celebrity on more than a couple of these is probably one of the oligarchy. It is not a single-minded group, different oligarchs have different interests. There are interlocking directorates that unify the common interests: you will find directors of Coal Mine Operators on the board of utility companies, and vice versa. That will also be on the boards of those who transport the coal and those who manufacture generators and other power transmission items.
As I have said before, the GOP is nearly 100% sold out to the various oligarchies. Some of the Democrats are sold out as well. Sen Menendez belongs to the Fanjul Sugar interests, for example.
-
How convenient that there's no direct connections of person A <--> politician B. Just the same old nebulous cloud of evil rich people.......unless of course they donate to Democrats, in which case, they they are simply well intentioned visionaries ::)
-
When Politicians are for hire, the electorate looses out.
We as the electoriate are loosing out on a regular basis now and neither party has any innocence to claim.
Should we call it our fault , are we as the electorate too gullable and tolerant?
Yes , I think so , when we see a very slick comercial frequently on the TV , Blogspace, billboards , etc.... This is significant only to show the money being spent is large, we should all be applying personally held correction factors .
When I see a persuasive arguement , I need only see it once if I understand it and further money spent is superflouous to me.
When I see advertisement , be it however well crafted, if it has no logic or no facts or no appeal that I understand , the money is worse than wasted.
Worst of all when I am insulted in my intelligence or integrety by an advertisement the money spent is just aggravateing the negative.
There are a lot of people who are only marginally informed , moving these margins is what makes the huge spending work.
If more people knew the facts in Travelgate or Bengazi, fifty billion dollars would not elect her.
Shame on us all for trusting the "information" spoonfed us along with the shampoo and breakfast cerial.
-
If more people knew the facts in Travelgate or Bengazi, fifty billion dollars would not elect her.
Shame on us all for trusting the "information" spoonfed us along with the shampoo and breakfast cerial.
Amen
-
People who do not want you to know they have purchased a politician do not come right out and say it.
Every once in a while, it is so blatant everyone knows. Newt Gingrich was purchased by Sheldon Adelson.
No one gives a teensy turd about Travelgate or Benghazi. People want a peaceful country that provides decent healthcare for its citizens and does not shove religion down everyone's throat. There is no indication whatever that the GOP wants more than more tax cuts for the rich and more more more guns weapons and war.
-
No one gives a teensy turd about Travelgate or Benghazi.
Because its a Democrat....and more importantly its Hillary. Now, if it were a Republican, or someone like Walker, "everyone" would be having a turd.
Your version of what "people want" is far different than the people I know, who want to take better care of themselves, who believe they are far better stewards of their hard earned $'s, than the Government, who also want quaility healthcare, without the Government making it more expensive and of less quality, and who are proud to be an American, not because of all the perks they're promised, but because of the freedoms this country provides, compared to so many others. That includes the freedom of Religion. No one is shoving anything down anyone's throat....except of course well intentioned Democrat "visionaries"
-
Walker is a union busting asshole. You want to shove your religion's views of abortion down everyone's throats. And medical care is not the sort of service where people can get a guaranteed proce on procedures and shop around. The free market works for carrots and gasoline but not for medical care because of its complicated nature.
-
A) I can find just the same amount of derogatories to throw at Hillary...and then some
B) Regarding the life of an unborn child, MY RELIGION HAS NOTHING TO DO with the goal of defending the life of an innocent >:(
C) I work in healthcare. It is IMPOSSIBLE to ration a service and expect the quality to go anywhere, but DOWN. That's EXACTLY what's happening with our healthcare, as EVERYONE gets worse and worse service, at higher and higher costs applied to the middle and upper classes that have to pay for it. The upper class can afford it, the middle class, like myself are getting royally shafted
-
It is rationed by price. If you do not have the dough, you stay sick or die.
Insurance is the only way to cover medical needs not yet known, and universal insurance is the only way to do it for everyone.
-
It is rationed by price.
In a Government controlled system, yea. Which is why the quality gets screwed.
If you do not have the dough, you stay sick or die.
Or you get a job that provides healthcare insurance
Or you earn enough to purchase your own healthcare insurance
There is no right to someone else's service...period There is no right to healthcare coverage...period. What Government CAN do, is to come up with legislation to help those with pre-existing conditions. But blanket healthcare to everyone is a recipe for skyrocketing healthcare costs/premiums, and degrading quality of care. That's not just a rant, that's factually backed up by places like England & Canada, and I'm now witness to the horrible repercussions of Obamination care as well
-
People who do not want you to know they have purchased a politician do not come right out and say it.
Every once in a while, it is so blatant everyone knows. Newt Gingrich was purchased by Sheldon Adelson.
No one gives a teensy turd about Travelgate or Benghazi. People want a peaceful country that provides decent healthcare for its citizens and does not shove religion down everyone's throat. There is no indication whatever that the GOP wants more than more tax cuts for the rich and more more more guns weapons and war.
Do people care that graft from sources foreign and domestic have made Bill and Hillary go from penniless to the top one percent of the top one percent in income for the time since they were elected?
I know that Boss Tweed claimed that he only took honest graft , perhaps this could be Hillarys slogan too?
The top one percent of earners starts at approximately $300,000 per year, if Billary makes more than this in a month , does Hillary gain credibility to berate the CEO's of America for making too high a multiple of the average workers salary?
Frankly I do not mind Hillary being rich, I dislike her for other reasons . I do mind her insulting the intelligence of the common man and asking to be our champion as she promises to attack her own class .
-
I am pretty sure that Hillary is a better leader than the Republican't buffoons lined up against her. They are all clueless, except for their ambitions and their desire to cut taxes for the rich.
-
...so of course, ends justify the means. Hypocrisy reigns supreme for the left, as Hillary gets a complete pass for everything the GOP is supposedly condemned for
-
I bet that all 19 of the Republican'ts who want to lead this country have a plan to cut taxes, and a goodly number of then actually believe that cutting taxes always raises revenues as per the Theory of the Sacred Laffer Curve Cocktail Napkin.
And all of them no doubt disagrees with whatever Obama does about Yemen, though it would be expecting far too much for them to have a coherent policy about Yemen related to policy.
Problem is there are three factions in Yemen: (1) the Sunni faction, that is on Al Qaeda's side, supported by those eternal pals of democracy, the Saudis. (2) The Shia faction, supported by Hezbollah and their pals, the Iranians and (3) The Houthis, another Shiite group that includes in its motto, 'Death to America, Death to Israel'.
The fourth group, the Democracy-loving, diversity- supporting, pro Israeli, pro American Yemenis, alas, does not exist.
The end quite often justifies the means: if I wish to get rich in the stock market, this justifies the means, which is to put money in the stock market. The means of heating a large pan of it is easily justified by the fried chicken that results from this action. Every politician must raise money to run, because we have unlimited primaries and no public funding. The means to get elected is raising that money. Poor John Boulton is not taken seriously, even though he really wants to be president, but very few will give him money, no matter what he promises. He will therefore never attain his end, no matter how corrupt he is willing to be.
-
I bet that all 19 of the Republican'ts who want to lead this country have a plan to cut taxes, and a goodly number of then actually believe that cutting taxes always raises revenues
Hate that reality thing, don't you. When there's a policy that actually provides MORE money to working Americans, stimulates job growth, and creates the enviroment for more jobs, which in turn generates more revenue for the Fed, of course that's a fantastic idea. And before you try Dr Deflection, its not about abolishing taxes either.
And all of them no doubt disagrees with whatever Obama does about Yemen, though it would be expecting far too much for them to have a coherent policy about Yemen related to policy.
I have no idea what any of their positions are regarding Yemen. What I do know is that Obama declared Yemen is "success story", as it relates to foreign policy. And when you combine that "succcess" to what's happened all across the Middle East, capped by the latest greatest blunder of the Iranian understanding of a concept of an arrangement to a framework, under Obama's policy, and Hillary's direction of that policy, no amount of qat is going to fool this country's electorate
The end quite often justifies the means
There you go. So, every time you try and lay some accusation as to supposed nefarious campaign shenanigans by anyone else outside of Democrats, just remember to hit that "yes, I'm a hypocrite" button, and be be proud of it, and Hillary's record of corruption, from Travelgate, to Benghazi, to e-mailgate.....because of course, her becoming President justifies any and all means.....right?
-
There is no way that Yemen will ever be a success story. No American president could ever affect the politics of Yemen significantly enough to change much of anything in Yemen. I think he was referring to the situation in which the former president Abdullah Salah, agreed to step down in return for immunity to be replaced by his VP, a guy named Hadi, in order to prevent a major bloody battle. This was accomplished and a battle was avoided. But of course, there are four factions fighting in Yemen now, and the Saudis have knocked out the utilities in a dry country where it is very hot and agriculture depends on pumping groundwater.
It is not fair to claim that Obama said that he had solved all of Yemen's problems forever and then failed at it. You know nothing about Yemen., you are just regurgitating rightwing crapola that provides a continuous stream of Obamahating negativity
-
There is no way that Yemen will ever be a success story.
And yet, THAT's what Obama was touting, as an example of his foreign policy success. So, was he lying??
Nor did I claim he said he was going to solve all their problems either, Dr. Deflection ::)
-
What he said was valid in the context that he said it when he said it.
If I have $20 three days ago, and spent $10 today, and it is revealed that I have $10 today, I was not lying three days ago, even though I no longer have $20.
You do not understand the word "lying".
-
Oh, I understand lying very well. Something along the lines of "If you like your insurance, you can keep it...period. If you like your Dr, you can keep them....period"
Nor am I saying that Obama is lying about Yemen. YOU seem to be the one implying that with your proclamation that it could have never been a foreign policy success, despite Obama's claims that it was
-
The Washington Examiner reports (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563476), “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”
The New York Times has a report (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0) about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow
Reuters reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-clintons-speech-income-shows-how-their-wealth-is-intertwined-with-charity/2015/04/22/12709ec0-dc8d-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html), “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”
The Washington Post reports (http://The Washington Post reports) that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative
The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t.
The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.
The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. And yet Senator Reid was going apesnot with the accusation that then candidate Romney didn't pay his taxes. I think its a safe bet that Reid won't bend 1 vocal cord on this. He's of the same professorial mindset that the ends justify the means...lying, making false accusations, taking in whatever monies you can, from wherever you can, from whomever you can, because we can't have those evil Republicans in charge
-
Do people care that graft from sources foreign and domestic have made Bill and Hillary go from penniless to the top one percent of the top one percent in income for the time since they were elected?
Uh no....isn't it obvious that the "free goodies" crowd don't care about anything except
a continuation of the "free goodies" they are promised by whomever the democrat candidate is.
They only care about electing someone that will steal other people's money for them.
The top one percent of earners starts at approximately $300,000 per year, if Billary makes more than this in a month ,
does Hillary gain credibility to berate the CEO's of America for making too high a multiple of the average workers salary?
(http://s9.postimg.org/l1az2h5sv/Hillary_Corrupt.jpg)
-
The "defense" is going to be 2 fold
1) all this reporting is just fodder of the VRWC (ignoring of course the reporting now coming out of the more MSM outlets, that have traditionally been very supportive of Democrats)
2) There's no "direct evidence" that Hillary uses her position as SoS to push/approve anything for direct quid-pro-quo donations/perks to her or their family's foundation (ignorong of course all the circumstantial evidence that would be used to bury a Republican.)
So, what you have, as it relates to pretty much anything Clinton, is that you just have to "take their word"....that there wasn't anything Benghazi or cover-up or anything possibly incriminating with all thouse thousands of e-mails that were deleted, the hard drive cleaned, and the server wiped. Or that there's no quid-pro-quo at all regarding massive amounts of foreign contributions, and huge speaking paymets, following approval of various State Dept related initiatives, like handing over OUR Uranium to a Russian company??
-
The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons as individuals are not the same thing.
Shall we count the vast amounts that the Kochs pay to Cato as political or personal donations?
-
Are the Kochs running for anything?? Do they have the power of political quid pro quo?? I realize the knee jerk response is ususally to either blame Bush or bring up the Koch's name, but how does that in any way refute the gobs of $$$$$ that the Clinton's take in, and the political power that they have in pushing policy and programs that just so happen to be very helpful to the same groups/organizations that just provided the gobs of $$$$$
This is exactly the stuff you'd be going apesnot over, if it were Romney or Bush. Cruz or Walker. But then again, you've been painfully honest, in that it doesn't matter. She has a (D) after her name, and however she's gotten her $$$$$$'s, its justified, because we can't have them evil Republicans in control, because they've been bought off by huge donors......like.....Hillary :o
-
The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons as individuals are not the same thing.
Shall we count the vast amounts that the Kochs pay to Cato as political or personal donations?
Remember that fella you're not to fond of, named Cheney? Remember Haliburton? Remember how you keep tripping over yourself at condemining Cheney for any profits Haliburton may have gained from the wars, despite Cheney having COMPLETELY divested himself from the company. The Clintons ARE the Clinton foundation. Not only do that have a direct INVESTED connection, they apparently chose NOT to divulge those huge donations to their foundation on their tax forms....as mandated by law. If it weren't for some nifty investigative reporting that uncovered it, those millions they received would still be hidden from public scruntiny, not to mention, tax laws.
-
Cheney did not put his money in a foundation, and it was not at all clear what the Hell he did with it.
-
What money?? He was divested from Haliburton. He got nothing.
Let's focus back on who actually is running, who actually has direct investment in a foundation, who has received millions in foreign donations, who didn't divulge ANY of it on their tax forms for the last several years, while she was SoS.
-
....no amount of trying to "blame Bush", or rail against Cheney or the Kochs can remove the current stench of sleaze the Clintons are producing. EVERTHING wrong about $$$ + politics, personified in 1 name, Clinton. Everything that the GOP supposedly is condemned for, Hillary & Co are doing it in spades
-
SHe is doing it just to PISS YOU OFF, sirs. It is deliberate.
There is nothing Hillary likes more than to hear you wail, holler piss and moan.
Me, I think it is funny.
Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!
-
SHe is doing it just to PISS YOU OFF, sirs. It is deliberate.
There is nothing Hillary likes more than to hear you wail, holler piss and moan.
Me, I think it is funny.
Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!Ha ha ha hee hee hee yiuck yuck yuck (Snort!) har de har har har!
LOL......priceless. Best comeback in trying to defend the indefensible, I've seen to date. Here's a news flash professor literal, Hillary doesn't know me from squat. Hard to piss someone off you don't even know. You are right in that what she's doing is deliberate, be it trying to cover-up all her shenanigans & incompotence, wiping her compter from all incriminating e-mailings, not divulging all her millions she and Bill received in foreign "contributions", which the law mandates. It is all definately, deliberate, and not some underling stooges that forgot
What's truly stellar to watch is how this is literally the best you could do in trying to explain away precisely what you perpetually condemn Republicans for supposedly doing. Even Republicans not in office or running for office. As I said, priceless. More, more, please ;D
-
The Clinton Foundation and the Clintons as individuals are not the same thing.
Shall we count the vast amounts that the Kochs pay to Cato as political or personal donations?
If you are pointing out an equivalence, I have a quibble.
The Koch money is produced by sale of products and services.
The Clintons have nothing but influence to peddle....
-
So making toilet paper is a productive act, while advertising toilet paper is not?
This has nothing to do with how the money is made.
The Cato Institute is a non profit entity, just like the Clinton Foundation.
-
The NAACP, Rainbow Push, and a host of Democrat centric/supportive institutions are also designated "non-profit". What does that have to do with anything? And how does that negate the millions that Billary took in, while she was in a position to push/support policies that just so happened to be extremely favorable to folks who donated to their foundation? Merely a coincidence??
-
You hate Hillary, just like you hate Obama. Neither can do anything you approve of.
You are pretty amusing as a case study an obsessed individual who can think of nothing but politicians he dislikes.
-
You hate Hillary, just like you hate Obama. Neither can do anything you approve of.
That conveniently doesn't answer the more serious question regarding Billary's appearance of quid pro quo and political peddling, while SoS, or even as Senator. This has nothing to do with hate:
- Did Billary get millions in donations to their Foundation from foreign interests??
- Was Hillary the secretary of State, and signed off on the uranium deal to an organization that had donated $$$ fo their Foundation??
- Did Bill get a lucrative speaking fee in front of a Russian audience, following said approval of American Uranium to a Russian Company??
- Did Billary fail to note these tens of billions in donations, from Foreign sources, to to their Foundation, on their tax returns??
These are but simple yes or no questions, that have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings, Dr Deflection
You are pretty amusing as a case study an obsessed individual who can think of nothing but politicians he dislikes.
Lol....*Bush*...*Cheney"...*Kochs*...*anything Tea Party*. The art of deflection and projection, all rolled up into 1 little paragraph ;D
-
The fact that all you seem capable of discussing is about how BAD Democrats are and how there is a CONSPIRACY to take away your guns and let gay people MARRY one another and actually call it a marriage has everything to do with your obsessive personality.
Perhaps you could explain how Bill Clinton getting a huge speaker's fee in return for some Russian company buying a Canadian company that owns an American company is going to harm anyone in this country.
Every President since Reagan has cashed in on huge speakers fees. I imagine they pay taxes on their earnings. I don't see how this is must different from Taylor Swift getting paid for singing her songs or Ann Coulter writing her books.
-
The fact that all you seem capable of discussing is about how BAD Democrats are and how there is a CONSPIRACY to take away your guns and let gay people MARRY one another and actually call it a marriage has everything to do with your obsessive personality.
See? It's practically genetic. You immediately have to inject something no one is talking about and/or other hot button political issues that have nothing to do with the current topic. I'm no more "obsessive" than you are at discussing how BAD Republicans are, and how there is an OLIGARCHY to take away your dollars, and force women to have children, and actually dare to call a fetus an unborn child....demonstrates precisely the same supposed obsessive personality. And all of it, irrelevent to the topic at hand
Perhaps you could explain how Bill Clinton getting a huge speaker's fee in return for some Russian company buying a Canadian company that owns an American company is going to harm anyone in this country.
That's easy.....flip parties. If you had a Republican receiving huge speaker's fees, while their Republican spouse was in a position of political influence to facilitate deals that shower themselves with millions of $$$$ in "donations"......and then fail to even disclose it on your taxes, and you'd be going apesnot, at what else they would do
In other words, its all about buying politicians and the power they can peddle. PRECISELY that which you condemn those evil Republicans of doing. Here, you have Billary doing it in spades, but apparently that can be justified because............?
Every President since Reagan has cashed in on huge speakers fees.
Its not about the fees. Bill can get $5 million in speaker fees, if someone wants to pay him for it. I could care less. It has to do with the power of the politician at the other end. It would appear that Bill wouldn't have received such a nice Russian speaker fee, if it weren't for the wife, running the State Dept, that gave it the thumbs' up. And poof, there's not just a nice speaking fee, but millions more $$$'s "donated" to their foundation, from the folks who were directly benefited from the uranium transfer. And there's no politician more powerful than the President of the U.S. If you can buy that.........well, there you go.
I don't see how this is must different from Taylor Swift getting paid for singing her songs or Ann Coulter writing her books.
That's because you're having a clash between your efforts to rationalize what you'd condemn Republicans for doing and the ongoing support of the ends justifying the means. Neither Coulter nor Swift are in a position to push anything, outside their books & CD's. And even then, that's voluntary purchasing of their products. Best stick with the latter, so you won't look like such a hypocrite
-
Again, you tell me what I "best do".
I am not going to take your advice. You may have noticed that I disobey you frequently.
That is because of the observation that you are nucking futz.
You think YOU determine the "topic at hand", but you do not.
-
Again, you tell me what I "best do".
I am not going to take your advice. You may have noticed that I disobey you frequently.
Ignoring the multiple times I've made it clear that its a suggestive reference vs some order. Then again, that's nust another deflection effort, to avoid the current topic at hand. If you want to try to have it both ways....hypocrite and honesty, by all means, full speed ahead
You think YOU determine the "topic at hand", but you do not.
LOL......you can deflect all you want, off onto some completely unrelated topic. Just don't think you get a pass on how transparent and reflexive its demonstrated to be. This being just the latest in the effort, noting how you're avoiding, like the plague, what Hillary's manage to add to her incompotent resume, that you'd be vilifying any Republican for. Not to mention, it wasn't that long ago, you started some thread, and when I and others responded with some tangent, you literally got all angry, demanding to stay on topic.
I realize trying to defend the indefensible is hard, but trying to use me as your go-to deflection effort is getting really lame
-
Yes or no:
- Did Billary get millions in donations to their Foundation from foreign interests??
- Was Hillary the secretary of State, and signed off on the uranium deal to a Russian organization that donated $$$ fo their Foundation??
- Did Bill get a lucrative speaking fee in front of a Russian audience, following said approval of American Uranium to a Russian Company??
- Did Billary fail to note these tens of billions in donations, from Foreign sources, to to their Foundation, on their tax returns??
-
Why should I care? Lots of charitable groups get money from outside the US.
Why should I care? Not one atom of Uranium has gone to Russia.
Is getting a speaking fee illegal? All speaking fees are pretty much lucrative, unless they charge rent on the water pitcher and glasses.
Why don't you look at their tax returns? Surely you have a copy.
-
So making toilet paper is a productive act, while advertising toilet paper is not?
This has nothing to do with how the money is made.
The Cato Institute is a non profit entity, just like the Clinton Foundation.
Advertising is a service.
Selling access to power is graft.
Although the Clinton Foundation may be well qualified as a nonprofit, it does seem to have a few well paid employees.
BRUCE R LINDSEY-CEO CHAIRMAN OF BOARD TIL 7/2013 $360,672.
ERIC BRAVERMAN CEO until JULY 2013 $261,041.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON DIRECTOR $0
FREDERIC POUST DIR. SPONSORS & MRKTING $464,229.
CHELSEA V. CLINTON DIRECTOR $0
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON DIRECTOR $0
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
-
Why should I care?
Because if this were a Republican, you wouldn't just care, you'd be tripping all over yourself in proclaiming how "see, this is why Republicans can't be trusted, why they can't be in charge, that they're bought and payed for"
1 more time, its NOT about that they receive foreign donations or lucrative speaking fees. It's the access to political power to get things done or get things someone wants. American uranium now belongs to a Russian company....who in turn gave mega bucks to the Clinton Foundation, and a plush speaking gig to Bill. It's the epitome of sleazy politics, such as renting out the Lincoln bedroom, but with the added bonus of the President waiting for you in the bed (or a Secretary of State)
Why don't you look at their tax returns? Surely you have a copy.
So all that reporting of the fact they didn't disclose those 10's of millions in donations, from all those sources, including by the NY Times are all.....lying?? Is that what you're trying to claim? Ignoring of course, that when it was uncovered, they quickly started to "edit" those returns
Again, stuff you'd be vilifying a Republican for. But you don't care, because its a Democrat being bought and payed for. And apparently that's ok to you
-
It's the epitome of sleazy politics, such as renting out the Lincoln bedroom, but with the added bonus of the President waiting for you in the bed (or a Secretary of State)
=======================================================================
So now you claim that Bill and Hillary have sex in the Lincoln bedroom with their donors?
Nucking futs,
-
It's the epitome of sleazy politics, such as renting out the Lincoln bedroom, but with the added bonus of the President waiting for you in the bed (or a Secretary of State)
=======================================================================
So now you claim that Bill and Hillary have sex in the Lincoln bedroom with their donors?
Nucking futs,
There are probably very few with enough money to hire Hillary as a prostitute.
Bill on the other hand , is more affordable.
-
It's the epitome of sleazy politics, such as renting out the Lincoln bedroom, but with the added bonus of the President waiting for you in the bed (or a Secretary of State)
=======================================================================
So now you claim that Bill and Hillary have sex in the Lincoln bedroom with their donors?
Professor literal strikes again. NO, that's not what I'm claiming. It's rhetorical ::) But cudos on continuing to avoid what is not just claimed, but credibly factual
-
You have no clue as to how to carry on any argument.
-
LOL.....oh its transparently clear how you "carry on an arguement"
1st and foremost avoid the point being made
- Deflect
- Hyperbole
- Try to claim some literal interpretation
- Combination of any/all of the above
Then argue that....that being a point not made, or even implied, yet argue that to death
-
No point at which your position is untenable is ever anything BUT a deflection.
-
LOL.....so true....facts to a toe tag liberal....like kryptonite to superman. Nice deflection btw. Anything and everything to avoid the current topic of Hillary and tens of millions of dollars her foundation & Bill takes in from foreign interests, especially when she's SoS, while those interests rake in some sweet deals, cleared by the State Dept
-
There is no reason to comment on this, because there is no legal case, the details are unclear, ever since about 1979, the right wing assholes like Limbaugh have been on the Clintons' case. No one has sold any uranium to anyone, or even planned to.
It is of no real concern to be at this point, as there is no one to vote for nor against.
-
No one has said this is a legal case, Dr Deflection. And here you are again referencing a point no one has made......outside of course the Tax laws and the clear request by the Obama administration, of all folks, to make clear who and where the donations to their Foundation came from, that Billary apparently ignored as they raked in those tens of millions. No one is claiming they broke the law. No one is claiming that Billary should be charged with any crime. No one said this was a legal case, although it could be one. No, those are still more deflection efforts you're trying to use in order to. .....*drum roll*.....avoid the point actually being made. What a shocker. .....not
-
If it is not illegal, then you should shut the fuck up and stop bitching. You are powerless to change anything, including my mind. You are just wasting your time. Do you enjoy annoying people? Is that your thing, sirs?
-
If it is not illegal, then you should shut the fuck up and stop bitching.
See, yet another example between conservatives and liberals. You never hear a conservative tell someone they need to shut up, or that no one should listen to them. Quite the contrary, the more a liberal/socialist/Marxist spills the truth as to their intentions, vs cloaking in phrases such as "its for the children", or "if it saves just one life", or "you can keep your doctor/insurance, if you like it", the more educated the electorate becomes. But with the left, its always how conservatives should be made to shut up. If everything we discussed HAD to be limited to actual legal cases, what the hell are we here for? THIS IS A DEBATE FORUM. IF YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE, OR JUST TIRED OF TRYING, THEN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC, AND LET THE ADULTS CONTINUE TO DEBATE THIS ISSUE. As you referenced before, I'm under no obligation to adhere to your mandate of shutting up
You are powerless to change anything, including my mind.
I have no intention of changing your mind. I have every intention however, of highlighting every fricken one of your hypocritical tirades/rants, demonstrating just how merit-less your accusations are, and demonstrating each and every time you try to change the topic to something else that no one else is making, in some transparent attempt to avoid the point being made. Current post being a perfect example. I also have the power of free speech and to vote. Both of which can change many a mind and educate those who don't chose to be so willingly ignorant, and subsequently vote for some serious change in our political structure.
This topic isn't about what legal trouble Hillary is in. Nor is it about trying to change xo's mind. It's always been about the power of money, & the buying of a politician, in this case Hillary's political peddling. There doesn't need to be some napkin that has her writing I'll sign off on the Uranium deal for some major $$$'s for our Foundation. The mere appearance of impropriety is quite enough. Even then Senator Lugar, in Hillary's confirmation hearing for SoS, expressed that very concern. And now its come to fruition
See, that's debating/discussing an issue/topic, that has nothing to do with it being a "legal case"
You are just wasting your time.
Your opinion is duly noted.....and rejected
Do you enjoy annoying people? Is that your thing, sirs?
Only toe tag liberals
-
It's all just a coincidence, dammit (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State). Moving along, nothing to see here.
Apparently instead of Bill renting out the Lincoln bedroom, Hillary was renting out American Foreign Policy. And this is just the DICLOSED donors. Who knows how many undisclosed donors were amongst those 30,000 "personal" e-mails, that were deleted, that we simply have to take her word on
-
How is it that she does not have a right to her own e mails?
No one subpoenaed them.
-
How is it that she does not have a right to her own e mails?
When she combined them with her official government e-mails
No one subpoenaed them.
The were subpoenaed, at which time it was then disclosed that they were all deleted....and her server wiped. We just have to take the Clinton's word on that none of the 30+K emails deleted had anything to do with shady, undisclosed donors. Because they're so "credible" ::)
-
It just gets sleazier and sleazier (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations). It would appear that the Clinton Foundation has basically branched into a foreign money-laundering operation.
-
So much for the effort at trying to claim that donors couldn't be divulged because Canadian law supposedly says they couldn't be (http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/top-clinton-foundation-official-this-is-not-charity/). 3 Pinocchios from the Washington Post, with that attempt
-
Shameless: While Democrats attempted to foist upon voters in the days leading up to their 2010 electoral drubbing that Secret foreign cash was buying the election for Republicans! It was, in fact, utter and complete nonsense, not to mention Democrats outspent Republicans that year anyway, but Democrats were dutifully "scandalized" and very angry about it all.
Here we have actual secret foreign money pouring into Chez Clinton, and Democrats will merrily nominate Hillary for president.
-
The Clinton Sleaze boondoggle just gets wider and wider (http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/04/29/clinton-health-charity-failed-report-foreign-grant-increases-required-under-agreement-for-hillary-clinton-confirmation/yTYoUTi3wGhy3oDonxy6gI/story.html)
......The Clinton Health Access Initiative never submitted information on any foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review during Clinton’s tenure from 2009 to 2013, Maura Daley, the organization’s spokeswoman, acknowledged to the Globe this week. She said the charity deemed it unnecessary, except in one case that she described as an “oversight.”
During that time, grants from foreign governments increased by tens of millions of dollars to the Boston-based organization.....
Then Senator Kerry made clear, during Clinton's confirmation hearing for SoS that ..... “All contributions by foreign governments will be subject to a review process by the State Department’s officials,’’ Kerry said on the Senate floor. “This review will occur prior to the receipt of any such contribution, and Senator Clinton has made clear that the process has been designed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.’’
-
I recall Al Gore having to explain his receipt of Chinese cash.
How much did this hurt his election?
This did not cost him my vote, I already had found reason not to vote for him.
It must not have cost him a lot of faithful Democrats either he got a lot of votes.
But the election was very close, the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of victory in several states.
With enough other factors , perhaps something like this can be the final straw.
-
Gore actually got more votes.
By the way, one of the largest donors to Republicans is Sheldon Adelson, and pretty much his entire fortune comes from Macao, where he owns casinos, and his important goal is to keep our government sucking up to Netanyahu.
-
Gore actually got more votes.
By the way, one of the largest donors to Republicans is Sheldon Adelson, and pretty much his entire fortune comes from Macao, where he owns casinos, and his important goal is to keep our government sucking up to Netanyahu.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-is-it-sheldons-world.html?_r=0
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417627/how-jeb-bush-lost-sheldon-adelson-primary-eliana-johnson
So there is a counterpart to Soros?
This is important to know, but not just about one side.
-
By the way, one of the largest donors to Republicans is Sheldon Adelson, and pretty much his entire fortune comes from Macao, where he owns casinos, and his important goal is to keep our government sucking up to Netanyahu.
Completely missing the point on those tens of millions of dollars from undeclared/undisclosed foreign donors, including foreign governments. An act that would have Democrats screaming for a rope and high tree limb, at the mere appearance that a Republican was being bought.
But no, she has the right letter after her name, so whatever wretched, sleazy, unethical, if not criminal acts she performs, can be ......tossed aside and ignored. Rank hypocrisy apparently a mandatory requirement to be a toe tag liberal/socialist. But cudos on the deflection effort. Can always count on you to try that tactic
Gore actually got more votes.
Constitution 101, Bush got more electoral votes, which is what's required to be elected President, in this country. Well designed by our founders, so that we couldn't be ruled by mob mentality
-
You are full of shit, sirs.
The majority rules in the election of every other nation on the fucking planet.
The Electoral College was designed when in most states, only adult males with property could vote. Most people could not vote at all. No women voted, no slaves voted, no Indians voted, and only in New England were people who were not property owners permitted to vote.
-
You are full of shit, sirs.
Typical leftist response. When unable to refute the point with facts, just call the other person names. Although I also knew you'd try to "debate this" (Gore & the electoral college) vs the far more relevant point of the thread
The majority rules in the election of every other nation on the fucking planet.
Which is why America is set apart...and thankfully so, since we have a representative republic, and not simply mob majority. Majority works fine for local and even regional areas. But not on a country-wide scale.
The Electoral College was designed...
So that no heavy populated area of the country, could dictate what the rest of the country had to do. That's its principle design. It was referred to this as the tyranny of the majority. Just another brilliant concept that went into our Constitutional design
Now that we've placated your tangent, time to move back to the far more relevant subject of the thread....the Clinton's foreign money laundering system foundation, and the left's overt hypocrisy in giving them a pass, that they'd be crucifying a Republican for
-
We can all be certain that if Al Gore had won by some technicality and GWB actually had a single more vote, that Vice President Gore would have graciously conceded.
-
lol.......absolutely ;)
-
"Tyranny of the majority"
I can hear Louis XVI and Tsar Nicolas II and even Idi Amin saying that catchy phrase.
-
Well, there ya go. Those leaders/dictators didn't even have to worry about majorities, since they ruled with a militarized minority. Thank God our founders were as brilliant as they were, that we're run by a representative republic 8)
-
Tyranny is Tyranny, it matters little how the tyrant came to be.
When our Nation was new and the rules were being composed , there were small states worried that the large states would ignore the needs of the small , so that the less populated states would become slums as New York , Pennsylvania and Virginia picked all the plums .
Since NY and Virginia wanted all thirteen colonies to be incorporated, they agreed to split the Legislature and electoral votes in a manner that made the votes in RI and Connecticut matter.
This turns out to have been a fortunate precedent, as there have been several times that Majorities have been thwarted by strong minorities, the Majority eventually wins , but this has become a country in which a minority is not without hope.
-
Hear Hear!! 8)
-
The small states were accommodated by giving them two senators. That was and is enough.
This is a country ruled by the people, not acreage.
-
The small states were accommodated by giving them two senators. That was and is enough.
No, it wasn't....not when an urbanized heavy populated area like New York, could dictate what all other rural states could be forced to do
This is a country ruled by the people, not acreage.
No, its's ruled by the rule of law, and the Constitution. You don't like it....tough. The mechanisms for amending it are also there. Knock your socks off
-
Returning us back to the road of relevence:
During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, the Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom took over a Canadian uranium mining company that became known as Uranium One. According to the New York Times, it controlled mines “from Central Asia to the American West.”
When the Russians moved to take over a majority of the company, the deal had to get approval from Clinton’s State Department because of the strategic importance of Uranium. Her department approved the deal.
- Bill Clinton traveled abroad with Canadian mining investors as they built the company, and they donated to the Clinton Foundation.
- The family foundation of a Uranium One official donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation.
- That donation, in addition to millions of dollars more from Uranium One-linked people, were not disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, despite their disclosure agreements.
- According to the NY Times, “after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
Is it just a coincidence? If nothing is amiss, why were these tens of millions of dollars in donations not disclosed?
And this is just 1 example, albiet likely the most egregious. Many, many, many other lesser examples demonstrating the Foreign money Clinton Foundation money laundering system, for those who wished to purchase political peddling power & policy, that even the Obama administration was worried about. Which is why they had her sign that disclosure agreement that she then blatantly ignored