More than Half? Really?

ice said:

The problem is that the Republicans are not providing a palatable alternative.  If they had found a way to nominate Paul Ryan, HRC would be in trouble.

That of course is A problem.  HRC would be in trouble if almost any other credible Republican were nominated.  I would vote for almost anyone but Trump or Cruz, but sadly not an option.

But one should not exonerate HRC's many serious misdeeds simply because the Republicans nominated an evil clown.

I'm not actually convinced that HRC is any more of a crook that any other politician.  Her crime seems to be that she has survived a quarter of a century of Republican attacks.  Politicians seem to behave like a bucketful of crabs where, if one crab threatens to succeed in climbing out of the bucket, the others reach up and pull it back down.

ice said:

The problem is that the Republicans are not providing a palatable alternative.  If they had found a way to nominate Paul Ryan, HRC would be in trouble.

That of course is A problem.  HRC would be in trouble if almost any other credible Republican were nominated.  I would vote for almost anyone but Trump, Cruz or Christie, but sadly not an option.

But one should not exonerate HRC's many serious misdeeds simply because the Republicans nominated an evil clown.

Is there really one republican thats credible?  Paul Ryan is a joke.  Cruz? LOL.   Christie?  Far, far, far more ethically challenged than the Clintons. 

They started with a platoon of candidates, some with superstar war chests and name recognition, none of whom could muster their base to vote for them.  

The problem is that the republican party does not exist as you believe it to exist.

I'm not condoning or apologizing for this.

But I'd like to have some points for comparison.  What % of people who have official meetings with Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell have donated to their campaigns, or to the RNC? I have to believe that a very high percentage of the people who get into the offices of the Speaker or the Majority Leader to ask for "considerations" are fat cat donors. Giving access to people who make contributions is widespread in U.S. politics. I'll slam Hillary Clinton for it, but only if I found out that she's doing it in any disproportionate way compared to everyone else in Washington.

ice said:

nohero said:

ice said:

Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized.   It does just fine by itself.

Your initial post is missing some information which would help people to decide if the "defense of her is so comically inadequate".  Who were these people?  When did they meet or speak with her, and for how long?  Was there a topic of discussion (perhaps involving their own philanthropic efforts)? 
Were these long-time friends/acquaintances, who also donated to the Foundation?  Do these people give to a lot of charities, or did they have a prior interest in the activities the Clinton Foundation funded?  The nameless numbers don't really provide much information on which to draw a conclusion.

Sorry if the above strikes you as "comical".

Yeah, I'm sure it's all fine, which is why HRC and her Dem friends stonewalled for 3 years on providing the data.

Not much there in the response to my post.  I just think that little details such as the ones I listed matter if someone wants me to get "outraged".

ice said:

conandrob240 said:

if they do that (remove themselves from foundation business until end of public service) it also erases their fundraising power 

Wow.  So you are agreeing that if the persons soliciting donations to the Foundation do not currently possess political influence, then they won't be able to raise funds for all the great causes?

If I can't talk to the President / Secretary of State, then I won't donate?

So this is pure, naked pay to play at the highest levels of our government?  

Nope not at all. It's "if I can't talk to Bill or Hillary, I won't donate". The position of Secretary of State or president is not their main source of influence. Bill hasn't been president for a long time. Their celebrity is their power and source of influence. If they leave the foundation, the big names may not come around and the power to solicit donations is reduced. Same as if a celebrity with no political position at all headed the foundation. 

Your argument is that 1) people only donated because she used her position as Secretary of State. To that I say " I doubt it". If they had approached the same people as former President and Mrs. Clinton, my opinion was they'd have achieved a similar rate of donation and that 2) soliciting these charitable donations in this way was either iiegal (which is simply not true) or unethical (which is  matter of personal opinion)

Hoops said:  "The problem is that the republican party does not exist as you believe it to exist."

Oh I agree that the Republican Party is a disaster and may be on the verge of a crackup.  I'm glad I'm not a member.  But preventing another 4 years of current practices would be worth it, IMO, to nominate any sane advocate of private sector economic growth, tax simplification and regulatory reform.

On the charity front, it looks like a wash as far as using charity for influence peddling:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/donald-trump-accused-of-using-his-charity-as-a-political-slush-fund.html

On every other front, HC wins hands down.  I'm sticking with her.

conandrob240 said:

ice said:

conandrob240 said:

if they do that (remove themselves from foundation business until end of public service) it also erases their fundraising power 

Wow.  So you are agreeing that if the persons soliciting donations to the Foundation do not currently possess political influence, then they won't be able to raise funds for all the great causes?

If I can't talk to the President / Secretary of State, then I won't donate?

So this is pure, naked pay to play at the highest levels of our government?  

Nope not at all. It's "if I can't talk to Bill or Hillary, I won't donate". The position of Secretary of State or president is not their main source of influence. Bill hasn't been president for a long time. Their celebrity is their power and source of influence. If they leave the foundation, the big names may not come around and the power to solicit donations is reduced. Same as if a celebrity with no political position at all headed the foundation. 

So you are saying that if Bill and Hillary stepped aside, and the Foundation was headed by an A-List celebrity, interest in donating would not be impacted?  That representatives of foreign governments with business before the State Department or other arms of our government would be just as pleased to talk to Beyonce?  You say "their celebrity is their power and source of influence".  Really? It's just their celebrity that keeps the millions rolling in?

I'm fine if Jamie or Dave want to ban me for a while, but for that you deserve to be called an idiot.

nohero said:

ice said:

nohero said:

ice said:

Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized.   It does just fine by itself.

Your initial post is missing some information which would help people to decide if the "defense of her is so comically inadequate".  Who were these people?  When did they meet or speak with her, and for how long?  Was there a topic of discussion (perhaps involving their own philanthropic efforts)? 
Were these long-time friends/acquaintances, who also donated to the Foundation?  Do these people give to a lot of charities, or did they have a prior interest in the activities the Clinton Foundation funded?  The nameless numbers don't really provide much information on which to draw a conclusion.

Sorry if the above strikes you as "comical".

Yeah, I'm sure it's all fine, which is why HRC and her Dem friends stonewalled for 3 years on providing the data.

Not much there in the response to my post.  I just think that little details such as the ones I listed matter if someone wants me to get "outraged".

You've offered nothing but extremely defensive and imaginative speculation.  Not much to respond to.

Maybe we'll find some answers in the 15,000 new emails that HRC declined to initially release.

What I am saying is that I don't think the willingness to donate to the Clinton foundation was primarily due or even in large part due to her role as Secretary of State. I think if she had pursued a civilian life, she & Bill could have/would have raised the same amount of $ from potentially similar sources.

Could a different person (celebrity) be as successful? Probably. Depends on who it was. Bill Gates has done quite well getting his friends, business peers and even rivals to give away crazy amounts of $ to charity. And he was not SOS or President. I could see a figure like Muhammed Ali having been as successful at it as well. There's probably a short list of others who fit the bill. 

ice said:

conandrob240 said:

ice said:

conandrob240 said:

if they do that (remove themselves from foundation business until end of public service) it also erases their fundraising power 

Wow.  So you are agreeing that if the persons soliciting donations to the Foundation do not currently possess political influence, then they won't be able to raise funds for all the great causes?

If I can't talk to the President / Secretary of State, then I won't donate?

So this is pure, naked pay to play at the highest levels of our government?  

Nope not at all. It's "if I can't talk to Bill or Hillary, I won't donate". The position of Secretary of State or president is not their main source of influence. Bill hasn't been president for a long time. Their celebrity is their power and source of influence. If they leave the foundation, the big names may not come around and the power to solicit donations is reduced. Same as if a celebrity with no political position at all headed the foundation. 

So you are saying that if Bill and Hillary stepped aside, and the Foundation was headed by an A-List celebrity, interest in donating would not be impacted?  That representatives of foreign governments with business before the State Department or other arms of our government would be just as pleased to talk to Beyonce?  You say "their celebrity is their power and source of influence".  Really? It's just their celebrity that keeps the millions rolling in?

I'm fine if Jamie or Dave want to ban me for a while, but for that you deserve to be called an idiot.

ice said:

nohero said:

ice said:

nohero said:

ice said:

Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized.   It does just fine by itself.

Your initial post is missing some information which would help people to decide if the "defense of her is so comically inadequate".  Who were these people?  When did they meet or speak with her, and for how long?  Was there a topic of discussion (perhaps involving their own philanthropic efforts)? 
Were these long-time friends/acquaintances, who also donated to the Foundation?  Do these people give to a lot of charities, or did they have a prior interest in the activities the Clinton Foundation funded?  The nameless numbers don't really provide much information on which to draw a conclusion.

Sorry if the above strikes you as "comical".

Yeah, I'm sure it's all fine, which is why HRC and her Dem friends stonewalled for 3 years on providing the data.

Not much there in the response to my post.  I just think that little details such as the ones I listed matter if someone wants me to get "outraged".

You've offered nothing but extremely defensive and imaginative speculation.  Not much to respond to.

Maybe we'll find some answers in the 15,000 new emails that HRC declined to initially release.

Not defensive, and not imaginative - rather, curious about the details, and not ready to reach a conclusion based on not much information. 

"Imaginative" would be getting outraged without knowing much more than what you've relied upon.

Well, I can't see any fire, 'cause it's so darn smokey in here....

Ugh, my boss just gave me something to do..

It's been a pleasure....

The Prince of Bahrain, Melinda Gates and Alex Rodriguez donate $1M each to the Clinton Foundation. Within the next six months:

The Prince of Bahrain requests a meeting because he's unhappy with the terms associated with the naval base in his country.

Melinda Gates requests a meeting regarding her foundation's efforts to eradicate malaria and some the obstacles that she is facing from countries that she's trying to help.

As an American of Dominican heritage, A-Rod wants to build an orphanage near his family's hometown, but the DR government is recalcitrant. He requests a meeting to help him locate and persuade the right people.

Which meeting(s) do you take, if any?

ice said:





At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with [Mrs.] Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as 56 million. At least 40 donated more than 100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

85 of 154. I keep wondering who the 69 deadbeats are.

So ice, who are these people who should never have been allowed to meet with Secretary Clinton. Can you name names? 

By the way, do you support overthrowing Citizens United? 

Because every day of the year there are cocktail parties, lunches and gatherings in Washington where campaign contributions change hands in exchange for access. I mean, what do you think lobbyists and PACs do all day? They make contributions and in return they get access. 

That is the way it rolls. 

Yeah, big donors, voting blocks, and even celebrities get access I don't have.  I don't like it.  But the question is, is there any candidate or elected official that can point fingers with a clear conscience on this subject?  If not, again, I'm sticking with HC.

The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess

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

The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess

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

I can tell you, however, that Yunus not only won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize but has also been honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a Congressional Gold Medal. In 2008 he was No. 2 on Foreign Policy’s list of the "top 100 global thinkers," and Ted Turner put him on the board of the UN Foundation. He’s received the World Food Prize, the International Simon Bolivar Prize, and thePrince of Asturias Award for Concord.

In other words, he’s a renowned and beloved figure throughout the West, not some moneybags getting help from the State Department in exchange for cash.

The bigger concern for me is Bill taking money to give speaches from people at the same time  HRC is making policy decisions related those people  I'm surprised no one has brought up the " Clinton Cash" movie yet, you can watch it on YouTube for free. 

I also think Trump is a complete ass and think he would be an embarrassment to the country. 

I would like to see Gary Johnson win, mostly because I think both parties deserve a time out.  

conandrob240 said:

I don't understand why this is a problem? Was the Clinton Foundation $ used in any way inappropriately? You have friends in high places, you get them to donate to your charity. Seems logical to me. 

You are aware of the absolutely extraordinary things that the foundation has done, aren't you? You know how many AIDS victims' lives were saved in Africa as a DIRECT result of the work President Clinton did, right?

I would rather the federal government just funded those causes and keep Russian uranium and Canadian tar sand oil out of it. 

yeah, except they don't

lumpy said:

The bigger concern for me is Bill taking money to give speaches from people at the same time  HRC is making policy decisions related those people  I'm surprised no one has brought up the " Clinton Cash" movie yet, you can watch it on YouTube for free. 

I also think Trump is a complete ass and think he would be an embarrassment to the country. 

I would like to see Gary Johnson win, mostly because I think both parties deserve a time out.  

Alright, alright, alright...I think I found a solution.

The Clinton foundation has done more good for the world in the last 10 years than the republican party has done in the last 25 years.  You can decide which to associate your values with.

mjh said:

The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess

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

TL; DR

If you don't count 95% of the people she met with, she met with mostly Clinton Foundation donors.

ice said:

Hoops said:  "The problem is that the republican party does not exist as you believe it to exist."


Oh I agree that the Republican Party is a disaster and may be on the verge of a crackup.  I'm glad I'm not a member.  But preventing another 4 years of current practices would be worth it, IMO, to nominate any sane advocate of private sector economic growth, tax simplification and regulatory reform.

Ahhhhhh.  A telling post.  Ice is disappointed in the last 8 years.  Perhaps "Ice" wasn't alive in 2008?  Maybe Ice wants to return to hyper unemployment, a failing economy, daily financial institutions failing, thousands of foreclosures every day, real estate values plummeting, a DJIA at 6900, a disastrous foreign policy and an international embarrassment in the white house.

If you want to spin your AM radio rhetoric here and paste together all of HRC's issues together to complain that she is not a perfect presidential candidate, because her (well-rated non-profit) accepted large donations from people who can afford to make large donations, have fun.  If you want use these generalities without having specific examples of instances where she agreed to make a decision based on someone donating to her non-profit?  OK. 

But once you wheel out your condemnation of the current administration, I begin to see where you are coming from, which is likely not founded in intelligent analysis. 

Woot said:

ice said:

Hoops said:  "The problem is that the republican party does not exist as you believe it to exist."


Oh I agree that the Republican Party is a disaster and may be on the verge of a crackup.  I'm glad I'm not a member.  But preventing another 4 years of current practices would be worth it, IMO, to nominate any sane advocate of private sector economic growth, tax simplification and regulatory reform.

Ahhhhhh.  A telling post.  Ice is disappointed in the last 8 years.  Perhaps "Ice" wasn't alive in 2008?  Maybe Ice wants to return to hyper unemployment, a failing economy, daily financial institutions failing, thousands of foreclosures every day, real estate values plummeting, a DJIA at 6900, a disastrous foreign policy and an international embarrassment in the white house.

I don't want to get too sucked into this argument, but I think the major reason the economy is doing well now is fracking and the big drop in oil prices, not Barack Obama's own economic policies. 

Fracking directly has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, it's contributed to an industrial revival of sorts.  The drop in oil prices and natural gas prices has been equivalent to tax cut of hundreds of billions a year and that drives a lot of job creation too.

Not to deny the big environmental negatives of fracking, but I don't think it's possible to deny that fracking has been a major cause of our economic recovery and I don't think it's possible to argue that fracking wouldn't have occurred under a Republican presidency.

Since Republicans are the party of laissez-faire, I think they ought to get more blame for the financial crisis itself than the Democrats, but both parties aggressively pushed homeownership even for people who probably shouldn't have been taking on big leveraged bets.  Also, you have to remember that similar housing bubbles existed in many European countries too.

The role of the president in "leading" the economy, for good or bad, is generally exaggerated, no?  It seems like the oil market collapse should be viewed as an economic stimulant but hasn't much of the financial press portrayed it as a bad thing?  

When were the payments made?  Before or after meetings?

How did other 50% get meetings when they did not give any money?

ice said:

conandrob240 said:

and your criticism is completely without any merit or supporting facts. If the Clinton Foundation is investigated and misappropriation of $ found, then you'd have a case. Otherwise, let's enjoy the fact that 100s of 1000s of dying people's lives were saved, in large part, because Hillary and her husband are exceptionally good politicians.

Ah, yes, that misdirection again, and again so predictable.  Does the Associated Press , or anyone, claim that the money was misused once inside the Foundation?  No.

But raising money in an unethical or illegal fashion, pay to play I believe it's called, is the core issue here.  

Are you simply saying that the ends justify the means?

What if the money was raised via other unethical/illegal means by persons you do not support politically?  Would the ends still justify the means?

Really. Imagine the foundation being "on the take" in order to separate rich donors from their money and then using it to benefit the world's neediest. Now there's a scandal...at least in GOP eyes. Who the heck would "do such a deal?" It must be a total mystery to Republicans.

jeffhandy said:

The Clinton foundation has done more good for the world in the last 10 years than the republican party has done in the last 25 years.  You can decide which to associate your values with.

HRC's as flawed and as "normal" as any candidate. But, unlike "non-politicians," who for some crazy reason are valued by disgruntled voters, she has a world (literally) of experience and is as center-right as a moderate could hope for. 

If there's disappointment on the GOP side, it needs to be directed at the pathetic national GOP, which couldn't field a non-psycho due to years of priming the Crazy Pump.