• 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!

Somebody explain to me the Clinton Foundation scandal

OpportunityCost said:
So you didn't want information about things, you think you know it all. Don't make disingenuous threads so you can carry water for Hillary. We have enough threads full of people already acting as aqueducts.
Click to expand...

The irony of this post is absolutely alarming.
 
joG said:
I would be more interested in knowing why it is bad for donors to have access. The only thing that is really iffy IMO is the lack of transparency. That gives the whole thing the feeling of sleaze and collusion shunning the light.
Click to expand...

Yeah i don't get it. The whole story is that a Clinton met with donors to the Clinton Foundation.

It's the most underwhelming "evidence" i've ever seen thrown at her. Still, to their credit, at least this time it's based on facts. It's just that those facts have yet to demonstrate any criminality, whatsoever.
 
Gaea said:
Yes, they said that most of the people who gave money no longer had a stake in Uranium One when the deal went through, but that one person gave money to the CF while the deal was being considered.

But there's nothing to indicate that those donations caused her to support a deal that she would have otherwise opposed. And if they had no effect on her actions (which is likely, given that everybody else signed off on the deal) then it's not quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

So unless there is a photo of her holding a bag of cash, or a recording of her saying thanks for the money now I'll sign off on the deal you are fine. Many millions, probably a majority hold your view.
 
Absentglare said:
Yeah i don't get it. The whole story is that a Clinton met with donors to the Clinton Foundation.

It's the most underwhelming "evidence" i've ever seen thrown at her. Still, to their credit, at least this time it's based on facts. It's just that those facts have yet to demonstrate any criminality, whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Another #NOTINDICTEDYET voice heard from.
 
washunut said:
So unless there is a photo of her holding a bag of cash, or a recording of her saying thanks for the money now I'll sign off on the deal you are fine. Many millions, probably a majority hold your view.
Click to expand...

Does that really look like what I wrote?

Or are you just projecting your worldview onto me?
 
Absentglare said:
Yeah i don't get it. The whole story is that a Clinton met with donors to the Clinton Foundation.

It's the most underwhelming "evidence" i've ever seen thrown at her. Still, to their credit, at least this time it's based on facts. It's just that those facts have yet to demonstrate any criminality, whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, the Clintons should have been more upfront with informatiin. They weren't and are reaping the storm. But they aren't very good with transparency and have lived well by secretive stealth.
But having said that, it's odd not to concentrate on the obvious law breaking.
 
Absentglare said:
The irony of this post is absolutely alarming.
Click to expand...

I did not start a post asking questions just to refute them with half assed partisan sources. If you look at the sources I have been using lately about this subject, they have been NBC and CBS and other mainstream sources. The people defending her have been using opinion, contortions of handling procedures and sites like Mother Jones.

Now, that said, try addressing the topic. Your response to my post doesn't address content, so try that.
 
Gaea said:
There's nothing disingenuous about my thread. That's you projecting your closed-minded self onto me.
Click to expand...

Don't try to bluff me after I've already seen your busted flush. This might as well be a bait thread.
 
washunut said:
Can you read??? I NEVER said they stole money from the foundation, nor do I think they did. Can you even begin to back up the slur against me.
Click to expand...

I can read. I read this:

The Clintons are not now worth by some estimates north of $100 million without ever having a real job outside of government if they didn't keep some on the money as you mention.
Click to expand...

Is "keep some of the money" somehow different from stealing from the foundation?
 
Gaea said:
Honestly, I don't care how biased somebody is. I just want somebody to link me a case of pay-to-play involving the foundation.

If they can't do that, then they shouldn't ever bring up the Foundation as a concern unless they think it is morally objectionable to be charitable.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get anything, much like you're not going to get solid evidence of her failing to rescue the Libyan ambassador in Benghazi, or a clear instance of a national security breach from her private email server.

If they existed, you'd have that evidence on Fox News 24/7.

But since you have fuzzy allegations, endless congressional inquiries with no end, and vague accusations, you can be sure that it's wingnuts making lots of smoke to cover the fact that there is no fire.
 
Threegoofs said:
You're not going to get anything, much like you're not going to get solid evidence of her failing to rescue the Libyan ambassador in Benghazi, or a clear instance of a national security breach from her private email server.

If they existed, you'd have that evidence on Fox News 24/7.

But since you have fuzzy allegations, endless congressional inquiries with no end, and vague accusations, you can be sure that it's wingnuts making lots of smoke to cover the fact that there is no fire.
Click to expand...

How else can anyone hope to get a charlatan like Trump elected?
 
Threegoofs said:
You're not going to get anything, much like you're not going to get solid evidence of her failing to rescue the Libyan ambassador in Benghazi, or a clear instance of a national security breach from her private email server.

If they existed, you'd have that evidence on Fox News 24/7.

But since you have fuzzy allegations, endless congressional inquiries with no end, and vague accusations, you can be sure that it's wingnuts making lots of smoke to cover the fact that there is no fire.
Click to expand...

We don't know that there is no fire. Perhaps there isn't, but the lack of liberal curiosity rests solely upon the fact that Clinton is a liberal. If this was the Cheney Foundation, liberals would not be showing the same passivity.
 
Fletch said:
We don't know that there is no fire. Perhaps there isn't, but the lack of liberal curiosity rests solely upon the fact that Clinton is a liberal. If this was the Cheney Foundation, liberals would not be showing the same passivity.
Click to expand...

Yet you guys constantly shout Fire! When it's pretty clear there just isn't any.

After the fourth or fifth time, it starts to get a little predictable.

But I do love how you justify it by complaining how the other side would do it too. Telling.
 
Fletch said:
We don't know that there is no fire. Perhaps there isn't, but the lack of liberal curiosity rests solely upon the fact that Clinton is a liberal. If this was the Cheney Foundation, liberals would not be showing the same passivity.
Click to expand...

Argument by Hypothetical sure is a fun mental masturbation exercise, isn't it?
 
ocean515 said:
I understand. But truly, your OP makes it very clear where your coming from, so why ask the question?

Perhaps you can explain why the Clintons have promised to completely disassociate themselves from the foundation they set up should Hillary be elected President.

If everything is on the up and up, why would they promise to do so?
Click to expand...

That's a phenomenally stupid question. As president, there would be a clear conflict of interest.
 
Fletch said:
We don't know that there is no fire. Perhaps there isn't, but the lack of liberal curiosity rests solely upon the fact that Clinton is a liberal. If this was the Cheney Foundation, liberals would not be showing the same passivity.
Click to expand...

This is pretty ironic, given that this thread is based upon curiosity.

Or does curiosity in your worldview mean "accepting without question Republican talking points"
 
Kobie said:
That's a phenomenally stupid question. As president, there would be a clear conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

How is it that as SoS there wasn't any conflict of interest? Where as president there would be?
Wouldn't / shouldn't that conflict of interest extend to both positions? (President as well as SoS)?
I mean they are both significant leadership positions in the US government.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet you guys constantly shout Fire! When it's pretty clear there just isn't any.

After the fourth or fifth time, it starts to get a little predictable.

But I do love how you justify it by complaining how the other side would do it too. Telling.
Click to expand...
It isn't clear there is no 'fire.' You just lack the intellectual curiosity to even consider that there might be. There is no question that Hillary went to great lengths to hide something. You don't care, I get that. But you are willfully blind and blissfully ignorant for one reason and one reason only--partisanship. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

Kobie said:
Argument by Hypothetical sure is a fun mental masturbation exercise, isn't it?
Click to expand...
What you do for your own personal enjoyment is your business.

Gaea said:
This is pretty ironic, given that this thread is based upon curiosity.

Or does curiosity in your worldview mean "accepting without question Republican talking points"
Click to expand...
You don't read posts before you respond to them do you. Typical liberal. I didn't say Hillary did anything wrong, nor do I claim she didn't. I don't know. But like I said, there was considerable care taken on her part and it wasn't to protect classified information. All I did was point out that liberals don't care what she did because she is a liberal. If it were a republican, they would be the ones foaming at the mouth. You can pretend that's not true if you like, but it is.
 
Fletch said:
All I did was point out that liberals don't care what she did because she is a liberal. If it were a republican, they would be the ones foaming at the mouth. You can pretend that's not true if you like, but it is.
Click to expand...

Given that I identify as a liberal, I'm disagreeing with your assessment. I think Republicans have a very solid, effective point of attack against Clinton. But it's not the foundation. It's her email server.
 
Gaea said:
Given that I identify as a liberal, I'm disagreeing with your assessment. I think Republicans have a very solid, effective point of attack against Clinton. But it's not the foundation. It's her email server.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but perhaps the point of the secret server in the first place was to keep connections to the foundation secret. There is a reason she set it up. Not sure we have gotten that reason yet. Either way, there is no question she lied out her ass in that first press conference.

And frankly, I don't mind if liberals say 'I don't care what Hillary did, I'm voting for her no matter what because I don't want Trump to win." It would be refreshing to see that knid of honesty.
 
Fletch said:
It isn't clear there is no 'fire.' You just lack the intellectual curiosity to even consider that there might be. There is no question that Hillary went to great lengths to hide something. You don't care, I get that. But you are willfully blind and blissfully ignorant for one reason and one reason only--partisanship. You just aren't honest enough to admit it.

What you do for your own personal enjoyment is your business.

You don't read posts before you respond to them do you. Typical liberal. I didn't say Hillary did anything wrong, nor do I claim she didn't. I don't know. But like I said, there was considerable care taken on her part and it wasn't to protect classified information. All I did was point out that liberals don't care what she did because she is a liberal. If it were a republican, they would be the ones foaming at the mouth. You can pretend that's not true if you like, but it is.
Click to expand...

Ummmm. No.

There is no fire because after years of exhaustively looking for it, the GOP has only come up with smoke.

Intellectual curiosity is not just making stuff up and pretending it's true. If you have evidence, post it. But you obviously don't, or you would have instead of babbling about 'intellectual curiosity'.
 
Fletch said:
Perhaps, but perhaps the point of the secret server in the first place was to keep connections to the foundation secret.
Click to expand...

This argument would hold water if emails were uncovered that revealed that she was engaging in pay-to-play. I created this thread to find out if any emails of that nature had been found. Thus far, it appears the answer is no. Without evidence of pay-to-play, I'm left believing that Clinton, like the rest of politicians, engages in more typical 'corruption', i.e. giving preferential treatment to to people she knows (no question she does this).

But if that's the extent of her 'corruption', she's no worse than Trump in that regard (given that we know he's spent 20% of his campaign funds paying himself, his family, and his businesses).
 
Threegoofs said:
Ummmm. No.

There is no fire because after years of exhaustively looking for it, the GOP has only come up with smoke.

Intellectual curiosity is not just making stuff up and pretending it's true. If you have evidence, post it. But you obviously don't, or you would have instead of babbling about 'intellectual curiosity'.
Click to expand...

The GOP didnt look into it. The FBI did. And the issue isn't dead because Hillary destroyed the evidence. If the server was hacked, we will eventually know the truth. And you lack curiosity because you are a liberal. Period.
 
Fletch said:
The GOP didnt look into it. The FBI did. And the issue isn't dead because Hillary destroyed the evidence. If the server was hacked, we will eventually know the truth. And you lack curiosity because you are a liberal. Period.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

The FBI said no one would be prosecuted for what she did.

The GOP bleated a lot, but have no real case, but after their Benghazi witch hunt went down in flames, they figure they can cling to this because it's easy to pretend bad emails existed now that they were deleted...although you apparently are not intellectually curious enough to think of the fact that emails will generally exist on more than one server...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom