• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

I guess that life is nothing but a game to folks like this, always scheming to get more and more! I'm sure that everything they do is legal, so I assume that when you only have over $100 million dollars in your piggy bank, all that's left to do is scheme to get more. BTW, did they get enough donations from the Joe Schmoes of this world to pay the vendors from her 2008 campaign yet? She apparently didn't have the money, poor thing! :thumbdown:
Good morning, Pol. The Clintons didn't have any money when they started their political climb, but they surely rubbed elbows with those who did. I expect that has driven them to accumulate all they can now in order to immerse themselves in the life style they so admired. I remember when Liberace used to go around to his audience and show them his elaborate rings, asking, "Do you like that? You should. You paid for it." Everything the op mentions is completely legal, and as long as the Clintons can get others to pay for their life, more power to them. They're no different than the stereotypical evangelist in that regard. The last I read, Hillary had not paid all the vendors. Maybe she has by now. Paying bills operates on a completely different time scale than collecting them for some. The lesson is to choose your clients carefully. The Clintons wouldn't be on my list.
 
Spreading facts is circling the wagons now? Can you point out one thing he said that was untrue?

It was pointed out that as a charitable foundation, those donating money receive a tax rebate or incentive to do so, so in effect, the foundation is taking money from the treasury of the United States. If then, that money is being misused in any way, that becomes an issue for the American people as a whole.

So, to your point, Rocket claiming that it's not "government" money and not "your" money is partly untrue.
 
Ehhh...if you think Bill or Hillary are liberal progressives you're crazy. They may be socially liberal but their economics are definitely pro-Wall Street and AT LEAST centrist (I'd argue conservative). It was the Clintons that led the Democratic party shift to the center and catered to big Wall Street firms.

Gotta love liberals who practically disown their heroes and their politics when those heroes aren't in office - Clintons aren't liberal enough - LOL. Sounds a lot like the bleating that Obama isn't liberal enough. Makes you wonder what a liberal thinks is liberal enough.
 
Gotta love liberals who practically disown their heroes and their politics when those heroes aren't in office - Clintons aren't liberal enough - LOL. Sounds a lot like the bleating that Obama isn't liberal enough. Makes you wonder what a liberal thinks is liberal enough.

I'm not disowning him. The Democratic party is a big tent that is typically socially liberal but on economic concerns range from leftist to extreme centrist.

Remember "Welfare to Work"...or how about the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"?

The Democratic party is not the Republican party. There's no lock step marching orders that everyone has to adhere to or you're primaried. In fact the "left" is marginalized in the Democratic party (for economics) because the big Wall Street socially liberal investors have so much sway.
 
I'm not disowning him. The Democratic party is a big tent that is typically socially liberal but on economic concerns range from leftist to extreme centrist.

Remember "Welfare to Work"...or how about the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"?

The Democratic party is not the Republican party. There's no lock step marching orders that everyone has to adhere to or you're primaried. In fact the "left" is marginalized in the Democratic party (for economics) because the big Wall Street socially liberal investors have so much sway.

Really? Joe Libermann will be happy to note that the Democrats are such a big tent party.
 
I hope you honestly are not comparing the loss of Libermann's primary to the situation in the Republican party at the moment.

Why not?

Can you identify anything on the Republican side that even remotely compares to a party primarying out its Vice-President nominee in the next election cycle? If the Republicans in Wisconsin primary out Paul Ryan, then you might have a point.
 
Gotta love liberals who practically disown their heroes and their politics when those heroes aren't in office - Clintons aren't liberal enough - LOL. Sounds a lot like the bleating that Obama isn't liberal enough. Makes you wonder what a liberal thinks is liberal enough.
We won't know until we get there. It's really up to Madame Pelosi to make that determination unless or until Hillary takes over. Then she'll tell us. These definitions and destinations are to remain nebulous for the time being. Why do you ask, grasshopper?
 
We won't know until we get there. It's really up to Madame Pelosi to make that determination unless or until Hillary takes over. Then she'll tell us. These definitions and destinations are to remain nebulous for the time being. Why do you ask, grasshopper?

I'm just a lowly grasshopper trying to be heard over all the noisy crickets.
 
Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

How many jobs did that create?
 
Why not?

Can you identify anything on the Republican side that even remotely compares to a party primarying out its Vice-President nominee in the next election cycle? If the Republicans in Wisconsin primary out Paul Ryan, then you might have a point.

I promise you Paul Ryan would be primaried if he became a vocal advocate of Obamacare in the House.

This is the difference...Lieberman was SOOOOO far off on a subject that was central to a lot of Liberals. He constantly voted as an Independent on a lot of issues and that was fine...but the Iraq War was something that Liberals felt strongly about at the time. He didn't just vote for the war but was a staunch supporter of it.

In the Republican party there's a laundry list of issues that will lead to being primaried. From immigration to fiscal issues to gun control. Every issue unless you completely walk the party line can lead to a primary. Hell...compromising and dealing in order to make government work is a means for being Primaried. Sen McConnell...whose basically been orchestrating the longest running most capable obstruction of Senate Democrats for 6 years is facing a tough primary battle.
 
I promise you Paul Ryan would be primaried if he became a vocal advocate of Obamacare in the House.

This is the difference...Lieberman was SOOOOO far off on a subject that was central to a lot of Liberals. He constantly voted as an Independent on a lot of issues and that was fine...but the Iraq War was something that Liberals felt strongly about at the time. He didn't just vote for the war but was a staunch supporter of it.

In the Republican party there's a laundry list of issues that will lead to being primaried. From immigration to fiscal issues to gun control. Every issue unless you completely walk the party line can lead to a primary. Hell...compromising and dealing in order to make government work is a means for being Primaried. Sen McConnell...whose basically been orchestrating the longest running most capable obstruction of Senate Democrats for 6 years is facing a tough primary battle.

Sorry, that doesn't fly one bit - if voting for and supporting the Iraq war was sooooooooooo verboten by liberals and their party elites, why weren't more Democrats primaried out? Could it be that Libermann wore his religion just a little too much for the "big tenters" to stand? Could it be that they couldn't attack Gore, so Libermann was the only one they could punish for losing to that satanic Bush?

Your attempts to make-over Democrats and liberals as tolerant of any desention in their ranks is ridiculous.
 
Sorry, that doesn't fly one bit - if voting for and supporting the Iraq war was sooooooooooo verboten by liberals and their party elites, why weren't more Democrats primaried out? Could it be that Libermann wore his religion just a little too much for the "big tenters" to stand? Could it be that they couldn't attack Gore, so Libermann was the only one they could punish for losing to that satanic Bush?

Your attempts to make-over Democrats and liberals as tolerant of any desention in their ranks is ridiculous.

Actually I pointed out that it's not just because he voted for it (which quite a few Dems did) he was a vocal supporter of it until he retired. In fact he was primaried out by an "anti-war" candidate.

As for the "party elites" he was nominated in convention for the Democratic Senate Seat again the year he lost his primary. The other candidate got enough % of the delegates that it triggered a primary contest.

As for what you wrote...you have no idea what you're talking about. i'm curious where you're getting your information because if anything it sounds like rightwing spin which seems typical on this site. When Conservatives seem to talk about Liberals or the Democratic party they seem to have absolutely NO real knowledge of the party.
 
I'm not disowning him. The Democratic party is a big tent that is typically socially liberal but on economic concerns range from leftist to extreme centrist.
From leftists to 'extreme centrists', huh?

Only a seriously deluded Leftist could possibly call a centrist 'extreme'.
 
Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....




That's correct, and no one should forget it.

When there is any change, we'll let the world know. Until then keep a close eye on the far right and don't worry about what the left is up to.
 
Actually I pointed out that it's not just because he voted for it (which quite a few Dems did) he was a vocal supporter of it until he retired. In fact he was primaried out by an "anti-war" candidate.

As for the "party elites" he was nominated in convention for the Democratic Senate Seat again the year he lost his primary. The other candidate got enough % of the delegates that it triggered a primary contest.

As for what you wrote...you have no idea what you're talking about. i'm curious where you're getting your information because if anything it sounds like rightwing spin which seems typical on this site. When Conservatives seem to talk about Liberals or the Democratic party they seem to have absolutely NO real knowledge of the party.

I grant you that I have no first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Democrat party - I hate getting dirty. I do know many liberals, though - actually have a lot in my family tree - therefore, I know how they exist and operate.

As for the vote on the Iraq war, 29 Democrat senators voted in favor of the action, 21 opposed. Are you saying that only one Democrat senator, Joe Libermann, did so from conviction, believing it the right thing to do, speaking up in favor of the action, and the other 28 voted in favor for political reasons, to protect their reelections or to avoid criticism? How proud of them you must be, how proud you must be to be a Democrat with such leadership.
 
I'm not disowning him. The Democratic party is a big tent that is typically socially liberal but on economic concerns range from leftist to extreme centrist.

Remember "Welfare to Work"...or how about the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act"?

The Democratic party is not the Republican party. There's no lock step marching orders that everyone has to adhere to or you're primaried. In fact the "left" is marginalized in the Democratic party (for economics) because the big Wall Street socially liberal investors have so much sway.

I was nodding my head while I was reading your post and then I read: "but on economic concerns range from leftist to extreme centrist." That is the most tortured term I've seen used in a long time. Face it, many Democrats are conservative economically--it's OK to use the word conservative.
 
Lieberman was not kicked out of the DNC.

He lost a primary, so he left the DNC
 
I grant you that I have no first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Democrat party - I hate getting dirty. I do know many liberals, though - actually have a lot in my family tree - therefore, I know how they exist and operate.
You know how the one's you know operate and exist. Are you saying your family or people you know of are representative of Connecticut?

As for the vote on the Iraq war, 29 Democrat senators voted in favor of the action, 21 opposed. Are you saying that only one Democrat senator, Joe Libermann, did so from conviction, believing it the right thing to do, speaking up in favor of the action, and the other 28 voted in favor for political reasons, to protect their reelections or to avoid criticism? How proud of them you must be, how proud you must be to be a Democrat with such leadership.
Ehhh...when the Senate is being told that Saddam has WMD's and is working in cahoots with terrorists to bomb US cities I can understand leaning to authorizing force. After more information finally came out...that's a different story.
 
Actually I pointed out that it's not just because he voted for it (which quite a few Dems did) he was a vocal supporter of it until he retired. In fact he was primaried out by an "anti-war" candidate.
So it is Democrat policy, not just John Kerry's, to vote for a war before they vote against it.

But Joe Lieberman decided to stick by his country through time of war and for that he 'primaried out'. And that just shortly after he was nominated for the vice-Presidency. We see that repeatedly from the left. Party first, country later.
 
You know how the one's you know operate and exist. Are you saying your family or people you know of are representative of Connecticut?
Leftists are much the same everywhere. It doesn't really matter what country you're in. Get out more, read more, learn more, and you will see for yourself. Connecticut is just a small dot on the map, but Leftism is universal.
 
Back
Top Bottom