• 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!

State Department OK'd most Bill Clinton speech requests within days

So then again....it wouldn't be all of them, correct?

Again it would depend on ones perspective... Its a perceptual argument that could go many ways.
 
Is there a problem of politicians spouses "rubbing elbows" with bankers or something? I thought this was a common practice in politics and is well known?

So now you've changed from thinking this is a referendum on Barclay's to a referendum on spouses associating with bankers? Come on, you're smarter than this.
 
Are you saying all politicians have no ethics?

I would say that. I'm convinced that an honest person can't get elected to public office.
 
So now you've changed from thinking this is a referendum on Barclay's to a referendum on spouses associating with bankers? Come on, you're smarter than this.

No. I'm asking what peoples "problem" with this? Whats wrong with Bill Clinton getting a ton of money from some bank to give a speech? Just trying to see if the substance of the criticism is more than just "CLINTON!!!! I DONT LIKE HER!"?
 
I would thing most former presidents would get a fast track through the state department with such a request, don't think it really matters who's in charge at the time.
 
No. I'm asking what peoples "problem" with this? Whats wrong with Bill Clinton getting a ton of money from some bank to give a speech? Just trying to see if the substance of the criticism is more than just "CLINTON!!!! I DONT LIKE HER!"?

I don't have a problem with Clinton getting a ton of money from some bank to give a speech. I'm a capitalist. I don't have a problem with anyone getting or giving a ton of money to someone else.

The article isn't supposed to make people angry that he got money from Barclay's to make a speech. The article isn't about Barclay's. It's about the State Department quickly (although just how quickly isn't really known because we weren't given a benchmark) approving his requests to associate for money with entities that were under investigation by the US Government and/or were in a possible position to be part of a quid pro quo.
 
I don't have a problem with Clinton getting a ton of money from some bank to give a speech. I'm a capitalist. I don't have a problem with anyone getting or giving a ton of money to someone else.

The article isn't supposed to make people angry that he got money from Barclay's to make a speech. The article isn't about Barclay's. It's about the State Department quickly (although just how quickly isn't really known because we weren't given a benchmark) approving his requests to associate for money with entities that were under investigation by the US Government and/or were in a possible position to be part of a quid pro quo.

Just another piece of the puzzle that leads to a pattern of questionable ethics and appearance of conflicts of interest. While outright lying about issues and their involvement with Foreigners over money. Even breaking agreements that were signed as well as not keeping records.
 
The article isn't supposed to make people angry that he got money from Barclay's to make a speech. The article isn't about Barclay's. It's about the State Department quickly (although just how quickly isn't really known because we weren't given a benchmark) approving his requests to associate for money with entities that were under investigation by the US Government and/or were in a possible position to be part of a quid pro quo.

Whats the problem? They payed $300 Million in fines... What was the quid pro quo? I'll give a speech and you pay not only me but then the US Treasury? Sounds like a ****ty return for Barclay's in this possible quid pro quo
 
Oh it leads to corruption, but the thing is its essentially legal corruption.

No it isn't. Politicians DO get sent to prison for this. See Rod Blagojevich. The problem is that the some people put party and ideological expediency above rooting out corruption.
 
No it isn't. Politicians DO get sent to prison for this. See Rod Blagojevich. The problem is that the some people put party and ideological expediency above rooting out corruption.

Giving a speech to a bank then paying Bill Clinton $650,000 for that speech, and then paying a $300 Million dollar fine? Who was doing the paying and what did they get in return to play? Sounds like it was just a bunch of paying and no playing...
 
Whats the problem? They payed $300 Million in fines... What was the quid pro quo? I'll give a speech and you pay not only me but then the US Treasury? Sounds like a ****ty return for Barclay's in this possible quid pro quo

Barclay's wasn't the only business mentioned. Did you read the entire article? It sounds like you never got past Barclay's.

By the way, if the article offends you, you should take it up with the AP. They're the ones who are making it an issue.
 
Almost all aspiring politicians have used various positions for personal gain, be it a resume filler, or a way to work their way up the ladder of power.

Not all of them are Hillary Clinton. She's special.
 
But does Ann have a brother, who is a scam artist and complained he would have to take a job making only 75k a year?

You know.....one that thought he could be his own charity.

Hell, I might go see Mitt tomorrow for a haircut. He's good at it.
 
Hillary might be the text book definition of 'aspiring politician'.

She might be the text book definition of a 'conspiring politician'. The preponderance of the evidence coming to light certainly suggests it, and possibly more.
 
Back
Top Bottom