• 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

Threegoofs said:
I think in the basic sense...do they get any significant financial remuneration from the Clinton Foundation, the answer is clearly no.

Of course they benefit indirectly- they are charity power brokers- they head up access events (like CGI) with the wealthiest and most powerful people on earth wanting to donate money to the foundation. They connect those powerful people together, give them celebrity access, etc.

That's kinda what successful politicians, and charities, do. And they are very, very good at it.

Seems like a positive quality for a Presidential candidate to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the idea that they don't financially benefit from the foundation at all sounds like an overstatement.
 
Absentglare said:
I agree, but the idea that they don't financially benefit from the foundation at all sounds like an overstatement.
Click to expand...

I really dont think they do benefit financially at all. Heck - it costs them money - they donate to the foundation themselves (as bubba points out - as if donating to a charity you are on the board of is somehow nefarious behavior).

Its like this - a friend of mine had a pretty sick kid a few years ago. I provided lots of free medical advice, set up a few places with good referrals to experts and his son was treated and is fine now.

He also happens to be chief legal counsel in a large company who has a substantial presence in my son's academic field. When he heard of my son's interest in internships, he was able to arrange a meeting with the head of interns, thus landing him a plum internship for the summer.

Did I help his son to benefit financially from the deal? No. Did I benefit financially from helping his son? No - he probably would have done it anyway. This is the way the world works. Its not nefarious, its not suspicious, its what people do - and when you are one of the most famous people in the world and have billionares donate to your charity, its the same thing on a different scale.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
I really dont think they do benefit financially at all. Heck - it costs them money - they donate to the foundation themselves (as bubba points out - as if donating to a charity you are on the board of is somehow nefarious behavior).

Its like this - a friend of mine had a pretty sick kid a few years ago. I provided lots of free medical advice, set up a few places with good referrals to experts and his son was treated and is fine now.

He also happens to be chief legal counsel in a large company who has a substantial presence in my son's academic field. When he heard of my son's interest in internships, he was able to arrange a meeting with the head of interns, thus landing him a plum internship for the summer.

Did I help his son to benefit financially from the deal? No. Did I benefit financially from helping his son? No - he probably would have done it anyway. This is the way the world works. Its not nefarious, its not suspicious, its what people do - and when you are one of the most famous people in the world and have billionares donate to your charity, its the same thing on a different scale.
Click to expand...

Zuckerberg and Gates have their own charities, but they could be argued to help facilitate these immensely wealthy and powerful people to sway public policy in even greater numbers by avoiding taxation.

I'm not a fan of tax exempt charities that we don't sufficiently regulate. We should either ensure that they meaningfully contribute to the public good, or revoke their privileged tax exempt status.
 
At least no one can blame Trump for having created a charity. Heck, he doesn't even donate to charities.
 
Gaea said:
Actually, I'm an undecided voter. I'm not considering Trump, but I am undecided between Clinton and third party.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by a third party? That's kind of vague. Gary Johnson only as a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, all other "third party" candidates don't even have that. So, I'm just going to assume that by third party you mean Gary Johnson so you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. How many lies and how much dishonesty does Hillary have compared to Gary Johnson?

2. Since you are slightly liberal and Gary Johnson is a quasi Republican who doesn't believe much in the federal government helping the poor, would you rather vote for a lying dishonest crook who is at least slightly liberal or would you rather vote for a pretty much honest person with more right wing values?

Even though I am not a Libertarian and don't agree with some of their policies, I am in the anyone but Hillary or Trump camp and since Johnson is a quasi Republican, he's getting my vote. If he can win just one state and stop Hillary and Trump from getting 270 electoral votes, I feel that the House would elect him president over both Trump and Hillary.
 
Moderate Right said:
What do you mean by a third party? That's kind of vague. Gary Johnson only as a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, all other "third party" candidates don't even have that. So, I'm just going to assume that by third party you mean Gary Johnson so you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. How many lies and how much dishonesty does Hillary have compared to Gary Johnson?

2. Since you are slightly liberal and Gary Johnson is a quasi Republican who doesn't believe much in the federal government helping the poor, would you rather vote for a lying dishonest crook who is at least slightly liberal or would you rather vote for a pretty much honest person with more right wing values?

Even though I am not a Libertarian and don't agree with some of their policies, I am in the anyone but Hillary or Trump camp and since Johnson is a quasi Republican, he's getting my vote. If he can win just one state and stop Hillary and Trump from getting 270 electoral votes, I feel that the House would elect him president over both Trump and Hillary.
Click to expand...

By third party I mean voting for myself.

I strongly disagree with Johnson's platform and would be nearly as worried about him as president as I'd be about Trump.
 
Moderate Right said:
What do you mean by a third party? That's kind of vague. Gary Johnson only as a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, all other "third party" candidates don't even have that. So, I'm just going to assume that by third party you mean Gary Johnson so you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. How many lies and how much dishonesty does Hillary have compared to Gary Johnson?

2. Since you are slightly liberal and Gary Johnson is a quasi Republican who doesn't believe much in the federal government helping the poor, would you rather vote for a lying dishonest crook who is at least slightly liberal or would you rather vote for a pretty much honest person with more right wing values?

Even though I am not a Libertarian and don't agree with some of their policies, I am in the anyone but Hillary or Trump camp and since Johnson is a quasi Republican, he's getting my vote. If he can win just one state and stop Hillary and Trump from getting 270 electoral votes, I feel that the House would elect him president over both Trump and Hillary.
Click to expand...

That would really revolutionize government.

It's highly unlikely, but certainly an interesting even to speculate on.
 
Gaea said:
By third party I mean voting for myself.

I strongly disagree with Johnson's platform and would be nearly as worried about him as president as I'd be about Trump.
Click to expand...

I would rather vote for you than Hillary, I think. Even though I don't know you personally, you've got to be more honest than Hillary. Many people in jail are more honest than her. I've got to admit though that I don't think you're actually being honest in claiming that you may actually vote for yourself over her, especially after defending the Clinton foundation. Given that, you're still more honest than her.
 
Moderate Right said:
I would rather vote for you than Hillary, I think. Even though I don't know you personally, you've got to be more honest than Hillary. Many people in jail are more honest than her. I've got to admit though that I don't think you're actually being honest in claiming that you may actually vote for yourself over her, especially after defending the Clinton foundation. Given that, you're still more honest than her.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, due to my state being the bluest in the nation, it makes no difference if I vote for myself or Hillary Clinton. I would almost certainly vote for her if I lived in a state like Arizona or Ohio, though.
 
Gaea said:
Quite frankly, due to my state being the bluest in the nation, it makes no difference if I vote for myself or Hillary Clinton. I would almost certainly vote for her if I lived in a state like Arizona or Ohio, though.
Click to expand...

Not so sure your state is the bluest. It did go Reagan and maybe some others too. Of course I'm sure Clinton has it locked up this year.
 
Moderate Right said:
Not so sure your state is the bluest. It did go Reagan and maybe some others too. Of course I'm sure Clinton has it locked up this year.
Click to expand...

California voter demographics have changed a lot since then. Reagan also was governor of CA.
 
Gaea said:
California voter demographics have changed a lot since then. Reagan also was governor of CA.
Click to expand...

My wife is from California and I have visited several times. My impression is that cities are Democratic but the richer suburbs and rural areas are solidly Republican. Unfortunately for my side, a lot more people live in the cities than in the rural areas.
 
Gaea said:
California voter demographics have changed a lot since then. Reagan also was governor of CA.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have, but Reagan was no radical right winger either.

Come to think of it AAhnold was a Republican, and a more recent California governor. Of course, he was a long way from being a right winger too.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, they have, but Reagan was no radical right winger either.

Come to think of it AAhnold was a Republican, and a more recent California governor. Of course, he was a long way from being a right winger too.
Click to expand...

Reagan was pretty radical about some things (trees cause pollution). But re: the governator: yeah. he even signed climate change laws to begin cutting back on CO2 emissions.
 
Gaea said:
Reagan was pretty radical about some things (trees cause pollution). But re: the governator: yeah. he even signed climate change laws to begin cutting back on CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you can classify the "trees cause pollution" statement to being radical, or just to being prone to gaffes now and then. I think every president has made gaffes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom