Hillary Clinton

[DrmDoc]

What is it with Clinton supporters and their inability to accept that people are critical of Hillary independent of having hurt feelings from the primaries? Is it the argument from incredulity, or some sort of projection? In the era of bought out corporate media, and partisan independent media, the "truth" can be elusive. We do the best we can based on sources we trust, trying to filter out the crap. Some are so sure that their sources that say Clinton is fine are presenting the unbiased truth, but cannot accept that there might be some whitewashing going on. How can you be so sure? I am just as critical of those believing the Benghazi crap, or the gun grabbing crap. There is, however, pretty compelling evidence that at least sipuggests a pretty possible/probable level of corruption, pay to play, and allegiance to moneyed interests. It takes pretty strong blinders to explain it all away. Nothing conclusive, but if there was that much suggestion someone's spouse was cheating, we would tell them to at least be cautious, and vigilant.

 

I'm not making an argument regarding who is worse, Trump or Clinton. I'm simply discussing the topic of the OP, Clinton on her own merits. I'll get it out of the way. Trump is worse.

 

I'm not suggesting that your criticism of Mrs. Clinton infers your support of Trump; however, to swansont's point, your claims of corruption isn't unique to any politician because that is the perception of politics and nearly all powerful politicians in America. No politician, including Mr. Sanders, can rise to any position of political power without financial support where claims of pay-for-play or corruption can't be inferred. Claims of corruption are meritless when equal claims could be made against other politicians and when no claim of "pay" has produced actual "for play" results (e.g., voting for legislation favoring a financial supporter). Criticism of Mrs. Clinton for the perception of corruption may be fair but claims of her guilt based on perceptions are patently unfair and without merit of substantive evidence.

Edited September 21, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

I, on the other hand, have always thought that those qualities ( center of road ) might make it easier for her to work with Republicans; to actually get some things done.

I may have wanted a 'reformer' like B. Sanders to make the US more 'Canadian', but always thought he would get too much push-back, as has happened to B. Obama every time he tried to implement something.

Republicans will not work Democratics on any major policy. Republicans have literally voted against policies they wrote once Democrats supported them. Starting in the 80's and then being put on steriods in the 90's the GOP has pursued a scorched earth approach. It is more important to them that they deny Democrats any victories than it is to accomplish anything else. Bush and McCain attempted bypartisan pushes on immigration and were blocked by there own party. The Affordable Care Act was modelled after Republican proposals and policies implimented by top Republicans like Mitt Romney and still it was branded Obamacare and fought vigoruosly. No candidate and no policy is center of the road enough. It is squeaky wheel syndrome. Won't get more grease getting along.

 

Most people are reasonable willing to concede that middle ground is fair. If you and I agree everyone should pay a tax to support a specific project but I think the tax should be $100 and you think everyone should pay $10 than around $50 for that tax seems like a fair compromise. The modern conservative movement exploits peoples natural willingness for compromise.

 

Just look at Trump. What Republican positions is he inline with? He has verbally attacked Bush (last GOP president) as a failure and is at odds with Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, and the whole leadership of the party. The policies advocated for by former GOP presidential candidates and Presidents are out the window. How can any Democrat work in a nonpartisan way with Republicans when they don't seem to have any true north policy wise?

[Willie71]

Well, what's the evidence that there is corruption? And by corruption, I mean something illegal rather than what is seen in pretty much every politician.

 

There are many criticisms of the Clinton foundation being not much more than money laundering and pay to play. At first I thought it was just right wing smears, but the evidence is stronger than that. I think this is the main reason Clinton set up a private e-mail server, and I strongly suspect there will be an e-mail leak before the election with much stronger evidence of pay to play.

 

No this is not proof of anything, but there is enough evidence to form a hypothesis worth testing. I know from my own history of looking into things that when there is this much pointing in one direction, there is almost always something to it. Remember when people like me said the DNC was putting its thumb on the scales? Some kept demanding to see the evidence. Even after the resignations and apology, some still claim there was no wrongdoing.

 

I'm also not a fan of the "well, everyone else does it" argument. It's still wrong. Didn't your parents ask you if your friends jumped off a bridge, if you thought you should too? Criticizing Clinton isn't illegitimate just because the whole system is rotten.

[swansont]

There are many criticisms of the Clinton foundation being not much more than money laundering and pay to play. At first I thought it was just right wing smears, but the evidence is stronger than that. I think this is the main reason Clinton set up a private e-mail server, and I strongly suspect there will be an e-mail leak before the election with much stronger evidence of pay to play.

 

No this is not proof of anything, but there is enough evidence to form a hypothesis worth testing. I know from my own history of looking into things that when there is this much pointing in one direction, there is almost always something to it. Remember when people like me said the DNC was putting its thumb on the scales? Some kept demanding to see the evidence. Even after the resignations and apology, some still claim there was no wrongdoing.

Ooh, "many criticisms". You know what? There have also been many criticisms that these stories on the Clinton foundation were hatchet jobs. I asked for evidence, and you admit you have none. There are organizations that monitor charitable groups. What they found was that 89% of the money that went to the Clinton foundation went to charitable work. One of the confusions is that they are a charity (i.e. they do much of the work themselves) and not a pass-through that only raises and distributes funds.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

 

 

I'm also not a fan of the "well, everyone else does it" argument. It's still wrong. Didn't your parents ask you if your friends jumped off a bridge, if you thought you should too? Criticizing Clinton isn't illegitimate just because the whole system is rotten.

 

Sure it is. You are singling out one person for something that you agree is a problem with the system.

 

And I can't recall my parents ever resorting to that particular idiotic, pithy argument, even if would have been appropriate. But it doesn't apply here. Politicians aren't doing this because of peer pressure, they're doing it because it's what needs to be done in order to win an election, and it's legal. Some, perhaps, resort to illegal activities and they should be excoriated and prosecuted for that. You don't like it? Change the system. Hate the game, not the player.

[Delta1212]

There are many criticisms of the Clinton foundation being not much more than money laundering and pay to play. At first I thought it was just right wing smears, but the evidence is stronger than that. I think this is the main reason Clinton set up a private e-mail server, and I strongly suspect there will be an e-mail leak before the election with much stronger evidence of pay to play.

 

No this is not proof of anything, but there is enough evidence to form a hypothesis worth testing. I know from my own history of looking into things that when there is this much pointing in one direction, there is almost always something to it. Remember when people like me said the DNC was putting its thumb on the scales? Some kept demanding to see the evidence. Even after the resignations and apology, some still claim there was no wrongdoing.

 

I'm also not a fan of the "well, everyone else does it" argument. It's still wrong. Didn't your parents ask you if your friends jumped off a bridge, if you thought you should too? Criticizing Clinton isn't illegitimate just because the whole system is rotten.

There have also been many criticisms of Obama that he seems to be a Muslim who was born in Kenya.

[Willie71]

Ooh, "many criticisms". You know what? There have also been many criticisms that these stories on the Clinton foundation were hatchet jobs. I asked for evidence, and you admit you have none. There are organizations that monitor charitable groups. What they found was that 89% of the money that went to the Clinton foundation went to charitable work. One of the confusions is that they are a charity (i.e. they do much of the work themselves) and not a pass-through that only raises and distributes funds.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

 

 

 

 

Sure it is. You are singling out one person for something that you agree is a problem with the system.

 

And I can't recall my parents ever resorting to that particular idiotic, pithy argument, even if would have been appropriate. But it doesn't apply here. Politicians aren't doing this because of peer pressure, they're doing it because it's what needs to be done in order to win an election, and it's legal. Some, perhaps, resort to illegal activities and they should be excoriated and prosecuted for that. You don't like it? Change the system. Hate the game, not the player.

Sarcastic, condescending reply. Going to cry mysogyny next?

 

No use replying to this beyond pointing out the intellectual dishonesty. Are you part of correct the record? No one can be that blind to at minimum the appearance of conflict of interest in the Clintons, and that is being very soft and generous.

 

Everyone does it. Biden and Warren have been taking money from middle eastern tyrants or dictators in Africa?

[swansont]

Sarcastic, condescending reply. Going to cry mysogyny next?

 

No use replying to this beyond pointing out the intellectual dishonesty. Are you part of correct the record? No one can be that blind to at minimum the appearance of conflict of interest in the Clintons, and that is being very soft and generous.

 

Everyone does it. Biden and Warren have been taking money from middle eastern tyrants or dictators in Africa?

 

 

Still busy not posting any actual evidence, I see. And that you take posting facts as sarcastic and condescending? Wow.

[tar]

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/majority-of-foundation-donors-got-special-access-to-hillary/

 

"At least 85 of the 154 nongovernment fat cats who got access to Clinton donated to her family charity or promised to back its programs, either personally or through businesses or other groups, according to a review of State Department documents by The Associated Press."

 

SwansonT,

 

What is wrong with evidence like this?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 22, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/majority-of-foundation-donors-got-special-access-to-hillary/

 

"At least 85 of the 154 nongovernment fat cats who got access to Clinton donated to her family charity or promised to back its programs, either personally or through businesses or other groups, according to a review of State Department documents by The Associated Press."

 

SwansonT,

 

What is wrong with evidence like this?

 

Regards, TAR

The Clinton Foundation is a real charity that does quality work around the world. What exactly is the accusation? No one is claiming the Clinton's keep the money for themselves. I see nothing wrong in Clinton attending a conference or giving a speech to a crowd that helped support charitable giving and HIV medication to impoverished children around the world. Trump's charity was used to by expensive portiats of himself and pay off gov't officials who were investigating his businesses.

[MigL]

In government, Swansont, appearance of wrong-doing is just as damaging as actual wrong-doing.

It erodes the people's trust.

And many politicians have resigned over appearances ( with no actual proof )

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

The accusation is that Hilary used her power as Secretary of State, to fund her husband's charity. Whether the "plans" that the charity promotes are effective or unique is not central to the argument. It is the going from broke to millionaire on a senator's salary and a state department salary that looks fishy. If her and her husband's speeches gain them personally millions of dollars, it is not because people are unaware of the Clinton's power to do something for them.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

I selected TAR's NY Post link and reviewed the article. It's my understanding that pay-for-play results in some direct financial benefit to the politician receiving the "pay" and some government efforts directly favoring the business interests of the "for play" recipient. In every instance of alleged "pay" mentioned in that NY Post article, there was no mention of direct financial benefit to either Mrs. Clinton or her husband. In every alleged "for play" instance detailed, the business donors did not benefit nor did their businesses; however, their charities did appear to receive certain benefits in exchange for their donations. Receiving donations from charitable businesses to further the chartable efforts of those businesses in exchange for supporting the Clinton's foundations charitable interests isn't corruption--that is unless one considers transactions to further social out-reach services and programs (e.g., AIDS related programs and mirco-loans to the impoverished) at home and abroad corruption.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

The accusation is that Hilary used her power as Secretary of State, to fund her husband's charity. Whether the "plans" that the charity promotes are effective or unique is not central to the argument. It is the going from broke to millionaire on a senator's salary and a state department salary that looks fishy. If her and her husband's speeches gain them personally millions of dollars, it is not because people are unaware of the Clinton's power to do something for them.

 

Regards, TAR

So the accussation is that she used her power as Sec of State to help her husband provide improvished children with HIV medication?

 

Going from broke to rich is a problem; everyone must inherit their wealth like Trump did? You may not be aware of this but Hillary Clinton is married to a former President and herself is a former first lady. There is a certian amount of name recognition and admiration that goes along with that. She can make money writing books and giving speeches. I am not sure what about that you find suspect? While Sec of State is a very prestigious position she and her husband hardly needed it to be considered extremely influential figures.Can you name something the Clinton's are accussed of doing for someone in exchange for a donation other than taking a picture, giving a speech, or attending a wedding?

 

Trump has openly bragged about paying off govt officials. A crime and he has bragged about it. His charity hasn't been used to provided improvished children with HIV medication. It has been used to donate money to local govt officias.

[iNow]

So many double standards, so little evidence to support the assertions.

 

Moving back to the subject of the thread, Clinton published an article today laying out how to address poverty in the US. There's substance here, and further supporting information on her campaign website, something that's profoundly different from the bluster we so often see from her opponent(s).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/hillary-clinton-my-plan-for-helping-americas-poor.html

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/estee-lauder-exec-received-special-appointment-donating-clinton-foundation/

 

Talks about what access to power Estee Lauder's donation to the Clinton foundation, might have achieved.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/majority-of-foundation-donors-got-special-access-to-hillary/

 

"At least 85 of the 154 nongovernment fat cats who got access to Clinton donated to her family charity or promised to back its programs, either personally or through businesses or other groups, according to a review of State Department documents by The Associated Press."

 

SwansonT,

 

What is wrong with evidence like this?

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

Nothing "wrong" with it, per se, but where in the thread was this evidence presented? Your implication is that it was, but the only reference I can find to the NY Post in this thread is a bit of trolling about an alleged affair of Bill's

 

Now, what you have to do is show that fat cats donating to campaigns don't get the same kind of access to other politicians. (And that's money going to the candidate, not to a charity they run.) If you can't, then you haven't established that this is unusual, and we're still a far cry from illegal. So what, exactly, is it evidence of?

 

Plus, you have a whole bunch of people who didn't need to promise to donate to charity (oh, the horror!) to gain access.

[tar]

iNow,

 

 

"Tim Kaine and I will model our anti-poverty strategy on Congressman Jim Clyburn’s 10-20-30 plan, directing 10 percent of federal investments to communities where 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years. And we’ll put special emphasis on minority communities that have been held back for too long by barriers of systemic racism."

 

How is this not picking winners and losers and causing divisiveness? How about a poor white child in W. Virginia? Why concentrate on race and give-awaways?

 

A strong economic plan will lift all boats. Redistribution of wealth, is not an economic plan. She promises equal pay for women? How can she promise such a thing, when she is not writing the pay checks? Access to good schools, suggests that the local schools in depressed areas are sub-standard. How did we let them get that way? And by "we" I mean the local school boards.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrP]

Quote:...."promises equal pay for women..."

 

How can anyone in this day and age argue that this is a bad idea? And how can you argue that it is wrong to support and give a boost to the poorest in society? You are basically showing your misogyny and your racism both in that post - and I expect you don't even think of your self as either racist or misogynist at all.

[swansont]

In government, Swansont, appearance of wrong-doing is just as damaging as actual wrong-doing.

It erodes the people's trust.

And many politicians have resigned over appearances ( with no actual proof )

 

I think we all know that rumour and innuendo have that tendency. Some people will believe the buzz, without evidence.

 

But that's just a distraction from what I was asking. I asked for evidence of illegal activity, rather than playing the game as everyone else plays it. So far...nothing. Just the assumption of guilt, and then the portraying of activities through that lens. Almost as if people were looking to play up these incidents in order to rationalize disliking her.

[DrmDoc]

In government, Swansont, appearance of wrong-doing is just as damaging as actual wrong-doing.

It erodes the people's trust.

And many politicians have resigned over appearances ( with no actual proof )

 

I agree and the public's trust is so easily eroded. That's sad because what seems like smoke is often the fog spewed by political adversaries to negate the effectiveness of good deeds.

 

DrmDoc,

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/estee-lauder-exec-received-special-appointment-donating-clinton-foundation/

 

Talks about what access to power Estee Lauder's donation to the Clinton foundation, might have achieved.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I see...Nancy Mahon, who is senior vice-president of Estee Lauder and global executive director of the MAC AIDS Fund (Estee's charitable arm), was appointed to chairperson of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS in 2011 after donating several million to the Clinton Foundation beginning in 2008. Perhaps you can help me see through all of this, where is the direct financial benefit to either the Clintons or Estee Lauder? Are you suggesting that an executive with extensive worldwide experience in a charity effort associated with the Presidential Advisory Council on that very same effort was appointed to that council because of her company's donations rather than her experience? I, really, don't see the corruption here--who profited?

Edited September 22, 2016 by DrmDoc

[DrP]

The whole thing stinks of FOX news lies and propaganda.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

Sorry the Post article was recent and not presented as evidence in this thread, but there is a general implied evidence value to current affairs, what is being talked about on the News, on Radio and TV and what we see happening on the streets of our cities.

 

It is not helpful for race relations, to break windows, loot stores, surround and trash police cars, for instance, it gives evidence that the cause is not on target in what it is trying to promote. Evidence does not only come in the form of a study or a 40 year chart. It is evident that we have a problem in Chicago with drug gangs killing each other, but your evidence shows that homicides are down over the last 40 years, and we should look at that evidence and ignore the fact that drug gangs are killing each other in Chicago. So Hilary deplores the violence, but she takes no responsibility for being part of the systemic racism that has cornered so many blacks in the Ghetto. And in my opinion (not evidence of anything, granted) she is pandering to the poor black community, by saying she will correct their plight, and fight against all the nasty bigots in the place and for the victims of systemic racism. She never once suggests that TCP might have caused the "bad dude" to be the "bad dude". It had to be, systemic racism. Even when the shooting officer in another incident was black himself.

 

I know you don't go by this kind of evidence, but the rest of the world does. Is it plain as day to me, when drugs affect a guy's judgement and causes him to feel on top of the world and impervious to harm. That white, female officer did not want to shoot that guy, and she did not shoot him because he was black. She shot him because he was big and strong, and high enough on whatever, to not answer her questions, and not comply with her commands to stop. The other officer that fired the taser felt the same threat, at the same time. I take offence at the brother of one of the guys recently shot to death by police of calling all police devils, and all white people devils. If there is some battle of right against wrong going on in this country, and it is framed as systematic racism against the poor black victim, then I am evil in that equation, and I do not agree with that assessment. It is plain to me that drugs cause bad judgement, and people should not loot and burn and destroy. I would rather we were one tribe. Black, white, brown, red, yellow, and we worked and lived and played together, looking out for one another and obeying the laws of the U.S.

 

Evidence of systemic racism is available. Evidence of criminality in the black community is available. Neither needs to be posted in a thread, for the facts to be clear to everybody.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

SwansonT,

 

Sorry the Post article was recent and not presented as evidence in this thread, but there is a general implied evidence value to current affairs, what is being talked about on the News, on Radio and TV and what we see happening on the streets of our cities.

 

It is not helpful for race relations, to break windows, loot stores, surround and trash police cars, for instance, it gives evidence that the cause is not on target in what it is trying to promote. Evidence does not only come in the form of a study or a 40 year chart. It is evident that we have a problem in Chicago with drug gangs killing each other, but your evidence shows that homicides are down over the last 40 years, and we should look at that evidence and ignore the fact that drug gangs are killing each other in Chicago. So Hilary deplores the violence, but she takes no responsibility for being part of the systemic racism that has cornered so many blacks in the Ghetto. And in my opinion (not evidence of anything, granted) she is pandering to the poor black community, by saying she will correct their plight, and fight against all the nasty bigots in the place and for the victims of systemic racism. She never once suggests that TCP might have caused the "bad dude" to be the "bad dude". It had to be, systemic racism. Even when the shooting officer in another incident was black himself.

 

I know you don't go by this kind of evidence, but the rest of the world does. Is it plain as day to me, when drugs affect a guy's judgement and causes him to feel on top of the world and impervious to harm. That white, female officer did not want to shoot that guy, and she did not shoot him because he was black. She shot him because he was big and strong, and high enough on whatever, to not answer her questions, and not comply with her commands to stop. The other officer that fired the taser felt the same threat, at the same time. I take offence at the brother of one of the guys recently shot to death by police of calling all police devils, and all white people devils. If there is some battle of right against wrong going on in this country, and it is framed as systematic racism against the poor black victim, then I am evil in that equation, and I do not agree with that assessment. It is plain to me that drugs cause bad judgement, and people should not loot and burn and destroy. I would rather we were one tribe. Black, white, brown, red, yellow, and we worked and lived and played together, looking out for one another and obeying the laws of the U.S.

 

Evidence of systemic racism is available. Evidence of criminality in the black community is available. Neither needs to be posted in a thread, for the facts to be clear to everybody.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I'm sorry...but how does this relate to Hillary Clinton?

[swansont]

"Tim Kaine and I will model our anti-poverty strategy on Congressman Jim Clyburn’s 10-20-30 plan, directing 10 percent of federal investments to communities where 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years. And we’ll put special emphasis on minority communities that have been held back for too long by barriers of systemic racism."

 

How is this not picking winners and losers and causing divisiveness? How about a poor white child in W. Virginia? Why concentrate on race and give-awaways?

 

The US government picks winners and losers, as you put it, all the time. You have no evidence that a poor white child in W. Virginia will not be helped. You say give-aways, but that's not based on anything in the announcement. As for combating systemic racism, do we really have to explain that?

 

 

A strong economic plan will lift all boats. Redistribution of wealth, is not an economic plan. She promises equal pay for women? How can she promise such a thing, when she is not writing the pay checks? Access to good schools, suggests that the local schools in depressed areas are sub-standard. How did we let them get that way? And by "we" I mean the local school boards.

Yes, a good economic plan will do that. That's mentioned in the announcement. Where is redistribution of wealth mentioned?

 

How can she promise equal pay? I'm guessing that she'd try to some pass laws in that regard.

 

I think local school boards have less control of how much money their region can afford for schools, or over state and federal involvment, than you are suggesting here.

[Phi for All]

I'm sorry...but how does this relate to Hillary Clinton?

 

Fog.

 

 

 

 

I sincerely hope a Hillary Clinton administration will address some of the fundamentals in perspective we've let crumble over the last 40-50 years. We let corporations suck the coffers dry with their version of personhood, yet we can't see spending money on things like space exploration or social programs as the sound investments they are. Instead, we have tar's privileged view that it's all giveaways and unfairly targeted. And it's a view shared by too many.

 

I hope we can leave making money to the capitalist ventures, and start thinking about the People's resources in a more practical light. To me, this is what conservatism should be about. I think Hillary should seriously focus on socializing our healthcare and education, two areas where profit-as-the-focus provides inferior results. Better opportunities for better educated, healthier people might make some of our other problems much more manageable as well.

 

If you strip the racism and fear from the conservative stance, hopefully you'll be left with the practical side that wants to do the smartest thing for the most people. Conservatively speaking, isn't it more logical to use public aid where it's needed, instead of for people who are already well-off? Or does helping defeat the circumstances of birth only qualify as progressive these days?