Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (16 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Tim, you seem to ignore the fact that it wasn't just donations to their foundation but also a significant amount of money paid directly to Bill for speeches.

I'm not ignoring it. It's being reported somewhat secondarily to the concerns about the Foundation, so I was concentrating on those.

But the same problem exists with both conspiracy theories (because that's what they are): as soon as you try to demonstrate a connection between the fees and Hillary's actions, the whole thing falls apart. Because there is no concoction.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, you seem to ignore the fact that it wasn't just donations to their foundation but also a significant amount of money paid directly to Bill for speeches.

I'm not ignoring it. It's being reported somewhat secondarily to the concerns about the Foundation, so I was concentrating on those.

But the same problem exists with both conspiracy theories (because that's what they are): as soon as you try to demonstrate a connection between the fees and Hillary's actions, the whole thing falls apart. Because there is no concoction.

Tim, you have to concede that if such a connection did exist the first place an investigator would look is her emails. And you also have to concede that if Hillary left a keyword relating to such a transaction out of her keyword list by which her emails were culled then that connection has been destroyed, by her. That would be a conspiracy of one, which is not a conspiracy at all.

{We're edging out of politics here btw}.

 

[squistion]

But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions.

Hillary doesn't need a magic wand or even a constitutional amendment. If a conservative SCOTUS member retires she can replace him with someone who would vote to overturn Citizens United, that 5-4 decision goes the other way and voila: campaign finance reform is achieved.

Maybe. But I doubt it. How often does the SC overturn decisions, even 5-4? It's pretty rare.

How often has there been a replacement on the court with someone from the opposite political spectrum? All they would need would be the right case to revisit the issue. A new 5-4 court would allow them to accept it and rule accordingly. SCOTUS didn't have to take up gay marriage issue again, they could have relied on previous decisions, but those decisions were out of step with public opinion and Citizens United may fall in the same category. No court rule says they can't reconsider an old decision.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, you seem to ignore the fact that it wasn't just donations to their foundation but also a significant amount of money paid directly to Bill for speeches.

I'm not ignoring it. It's being reported somewhat secondarily to the concerns about the Foundation, so I was concentrating on those.But the same problem exists with both conspiracy theories (because that's what they are): as soon as you try to demonstrate a connection between the fees and Hillary's actions, the whole thing falls apart. Because there is no concoction.

Tim, you have to concede that if such a connection did exist the first place an investigator would look is her emails. And you also have to concede that if Hillary left a keyword relating to such a transaction out of her keyword list by which her emails were culled then that connection has been destroyed, by her. That would be a conspiracy of one, which is not a conspiracy at all.

{We're edging out of politics here btw}.

Thats not the first place I would look because I would assume Hillary would be too smart to put anything down on email. After all you can never fully delete emails because the receiver always has a copy. That's why this whole email business is such a non story IMO.

 

[timschochet]

But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions.

Hillary doesn't need a magic wand or even a constitutional amendment. If a conservative SCOTUS member retires she can replace him with someone who would vote to overturn Citizens United, that 5-4 decision goes the other way and voila: campaign finance reform is achieved.

Maybe. But I doubt it. How often does the SC overturn decisions, even 5-4? It's pretty rare.

How often has there been a replacement on the court with someone from the opposite political spectrum? All they would need would be the right case to revisit the issue. A new 5-4 court would allow them to accept it and rule accordingly. SCOTUS didn't have to take up gay marriage issue again, they could have relied on previous decisions, but those decisions were out of step with public opinion and Citizens United may fall in the same category. No court rule says they can't reconsider an old decision.

I hope you're right.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Tim, you seem to ignore the fact that it wasn't just donations to their foundation but also a significant amount of money paid directly to Bill for speeches.

I'm not ignoring it. It's being reported somewhat secondarily to the concerns about the Foundation, so I was concentrating on those.But the same problem exists with both conspiracy theories (because that's what they are): as soon as you try to demonstrate a connection between the fees and Hillary's actions, the whole thing falls apart. Because there is no concoction.

Tim, you have to concede that if such a connection did exist the first place an investigator would look is her emails. And you also have to concede that if Hillary left a keyword relating to such a transaction out of her keyword list by which her emails were culled then that connection has been destroyed, by her. That would be a conspiracy of one, which is not a conspiracy at all.

{We're edging out of politics here btw}.

Thats not the first place I would look because I would assume Hillary would be too smart to put anything down on email. After all you can never fully delete emails because the receiver always has a copy. That's why this whole email business is such a non story IMO.

 

[squistion]

It might be nice if you could occasionally actualy add something to the discussion here besides the emoticon. Now it does beat POSTING IN ALL CAPS or exclamation points !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but not by much and it comes across as trolling:

That's awesome

 

[MaxThreshold]

It might be nice if you could occasionally actualy add something to the discussion here besides the emoticon. Now it does beat POSTING IN ALL CAPS or exclamation points !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but not by much and it comes across as trolling:

That's awesome

It's a good thing we have level headed and logical posters in here discussing the real problems Hillary has.

It would really suck if we had posters who zealously defended her despite the obvious and documented shady deals and history. Right?

 

[Ghost Rider]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

 

[Stinger Ray]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

 

[squistion]

It's a good thing we have level headed and logical posters in here discussing the real problems Hillary has.

It would really suck if we had posters who zealously defended her despite the obvious and documented shady deals and history. Right?

With no charges ever brought by any prosecutor at any time for Hillary in the last 30 years (or ever).

Wouldn't you think some young DA or kid would want to make a name for himself and have the chance to bring down the Clintons? But it never happened. And Ken Starr spent $40 million of taxpayers dollars trying to find something or anything to charge Hillary with, but he couldn't come up with a misdemeanor.

 

[Stinger Ray]

It's a good thing we have level headed and logical posters in here discussing the real problems Hillary has. It would really suck if we had posters who zealously defended her despite the obvious and documented shady deals and history. Right?

.Wouldn't you think some young DA or kid would want to make a name for himself and have the chance to bring down the Clintons?r.

 

[timschochet]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

 

[Mister CIA]

It's a good thing we have level headed and logical posters in here discussing the real problems Hillary has.

It would really suck if we had posters who zealously defended her despite the obvious and documented shady deals and history. Right?

With no charges ever brought by any prosecutor at any time for Hillary in the last 30 years (or ever).Wouldn't you think some young DA or kid would want to make a name for himself and have the chance to bring down the Clintons? But it never happened. And Ken Starr spent $40 million of taxpayers dollars trying to find something or anything to charge Hillary with, but he couldn't come up with a misdemeanor.

Be kind to keyboards shillbot; put the "Ken Starr spent $40 million" tagline in your sig.

 

[squistion]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

What if it is MaxThreshold's outhouse ignited by the flames of willful ignorance? Does that count?

 

[Mister CIA]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

Link

 

[timschochet]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

Link

Is that supposed to be Hillary's fault?

 

[MaxThreshold]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

What if it is MaxThreshold's outhouse ignited by the flames of willful ignorance? Does that count?

Funny you would accuse others of "willful ignorance" as you believe - without question - one Hillary excuse after another.

The Democrat Party needs sheep like you.

 

[Mister CIA]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

Link

Is that supposed to be Hillary's fault?

I would go so far as to say that she is part of the problem, or at the very least imply she has no desire, nor the muscle, to detoxify the free market.

 

[squistion]

An entire town could be engulfed in smoke and Tim would say, "I don't see actual flames, so how do we know there is a fire?"

Show me the town engulfed in smoke. It doesn't need to be a town; show me a single building.

What if it is MaxThreshold's outhouse ignited by the flames of willful ignorance? Does that count?

Funny you would accuse others of "willful ignorance" as you believe - without question - one Hillary excuse after another.

The Democrat Party needs sheep like you.

Speaking of sheep, Carly Fiorina on the GOP side tried to warn us a few year's back about this threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBlNVXMWe_w

 

[Slapdash]

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

I think it is even more scary to suggest that Hilary actually shares the values of the foreign governments and large corporations the Clintons are constantly raising from instead of is just letting them curry favor.

Yeah it would be, and I NEVER suggested that. I'm talking about Hillary's campaign donors, not about contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which have no influence on Hillary, despite your (unfounded, without any evidence) claims to the contrary.

you're such a ####### joke. Asserting that payments to Bill and the Clinton foundation have no influence on Hilary is about as naive as it gets.

We're talking about a family that takes absurd amounts of money from overseas and large corporate donors. To act like Hilary is some stand-alone entity from Bill or the foundation is the height of delusion. She is only in this conversation because of her husband, whom is raising vast sums from entities opposed to the American people.

 

[timschochet]

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

I think it is even more scary to suggest that Hilary actually shares the values of the foreign governments and large corporations the Clintons are constantly raising from instead of is just letting them curry favor.

Yeah it would be, and I NEVER suggested that. I'm talking about Hillary's campaign donors, not about contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which have no influence on Hillary, despite your (unfounded, without any evidence) claims to the contrary.

you're such a ####### joke. Asserting that payments to Bill and the Clinton foundation have no influence on Hilary is about as naive as it gets.

We're talking about a family that takes absurd amounts of money from overseas and large corporate donors. To act like Hilary is some stand-alone entity from Bill or the foundation is the height of delusion. She is only in this conversation because of her husband, whom is raising vast sums from entities opposed to the American people.

You're the guy making one unfounded accusation after another, with no evidence whatsoever. I have asked again and again what decisions Hillary made that went against the advice of the State Department or other governmental agencies? What evidence is there that she was "influenced" in any way whatsoever? What evidence is there that she acted in a specific manner different from previous Secretaries of State? You claim that it's all obvious, and I am naïve as it gets for wanting more evidence before I assume she is guilty and corrupt. And yet I'm the ####### joke here. You're so blinded by your hatred of all things establishment that you assume that anyone who is tied to corporate America is automatically guilty.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm pretty sure that most people on the FFA recognize that I am a pretty damn liberal guy. More than that, I am dramatically opposed to the current Republican party. I also vote in one of the closest swing states in the union, North Carolina.

I have no reason to speak out so strongly against the presumptive Democratic nominee. It will likely harm my liberal goals to see Hilary lose to a Republican candidate. I should tow the party line and pull the lever for the D candidate here.

However, we are staring down a political dynasty of the type that our founders rebelled against in the 1700s. Pretending that Bill and Hilary are separate entities is the game of fools. They are raising a ####load of money from governments/companies that do not have the people's interest at heart. They don't even pretend too. The Clintons have no beliefs except those that they are paid to support. And they are being paid handsomely to do so.

We cannot allow this to happen to America. We don't need Hilary and her ilk. We need somebody to stand up to this.

FDR isn't coming over that hill, but we can do so much better than Clinton:

"

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred. "

 

[timschochet]

Slapdash, I absolutely believe that you are genuine what you write. I don't think that YOU are a ####### joke. But you are so opposed to the "establishment" that I think it's coloring your opinion of Hillary Clinton. She really is a liberal (actually TOO liberal to be a perfect candidate for me.) And I think your beliefs about her corruption is unfounded. If that makes me naïve, so be it.

But the truth is, for me, at this point I will be voting for any Democrat, and that's going to continue for the foreseeable future. The GOP has moved too far to the right, and the Democratic Party now occupies the center, which is pretty much where I'm at. You seem to want the Dems to abandon the center and move further left, which would leave me no reasonable choices at all.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

I think it is even more scary to suggest that Hilary actually shares the values of the foreign governments and large corporations the Clintons are constantly raising from instead of is just letting them curry favor.

Yeah it would be, and I NEVER suggested that. I'm talking about Hillary's campaign donors, not about contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which have no influence on Hillary, despite your (unfounded, without any evidence) claims to the contrary.

you're such a ####### joke. Asserting that payments to Bill and the Clinton foundation have no influence on Hilary is about as naive as it gets.

We're talking about a family that takes absurd amounts of money from overseas and large corporate donors. To act like Hilary is some stand-alone entity from Bill or the foundation is the height of delusion. She is only in this conversation because of her husband, whom is raising vast sums from entities opposed to the American people.

You're the guy making one unfounded accusation after another, with no evidence whatsoever. I have asked again and again what decisions Hillary made that went against the advice of the State Department or other governmental agencies? What evidence is there that she was "influenced" in any way whatsoever? What evidence is there that she acted in a specific manner different from previous Secretaries of State? You claim that it's all obvious, and I am naïve as it gets for wanting more evidence before I assume she is guilty and corrupt. And yet I'm the ####### joke here. You're so blinded by your hatred of all things establishment that you assume that anyone who is tied to corporate America is automatically guilty.

Do you have Saints on block? Have you not read the stuff about Colombia and Saudi Arabia? Or about all of the countries getting weapon deals from Hilary after they donated to the Clinton Foundation?

Just like the NSA thread, you have your head in the sand. You disregard any evidence that doesn't support your worldview. You continue to dismiss the growing pile of evidence that people post

Take this false naivety and shove it up your ###. Go back to your own thread.

 

[Slapdash]

Slapdash, I absolutely believe that you are genuine what you write. I don't think that YOU are a ####### joke. But you are so opposed to the "establishment" that I think it's coloring your opinion of Hillary Clinton. She really is a liberal (actually TOO liberal to be a perfect candidate for me.) And I think your beliefs about her corruption is unfounded. If that makes me naïve, so be it.

But the truth is, for me, at this point I will be voting for any Democrat, and that's going to continue for the foreseeable future. The GOP has moved too far to the right, and the Democratic Party now occupies the center, which is pretty much where I'm at. You seem to want the Dems to abandon the center and move further left, which would leave me no reasonable choices at all.

I wish I could say I believed you were genuine too. You are a smart guy, obviously. But this stuff has to be fishing. The conflicts of interest are readily apparent here. This is a political dynasty for sale to the highest bidder.

This is ridiculous to support for anything but a die-hard Democrat.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm pretty sure that most people on the FFA recognize that I am a pretty damn liberal guy. More than that, I am dramatically opposed to the current Republican party. I also vote in one of the closest swing states in the union, North Carolina.

I have no reason to speak out so strongly against the presumptive Democratic nominee. It will likely harm my liberal goals to see Hilary lose to a Republican candidate. I should tow the party line and pull the lever for the D candidate here.

However, we are staring down a political dynasty of the type that our founders rebelled against in the 1700s. Pretending that Bill and Hilary are separate entities is the game of fools. They are raising a ####load of money from governments/companies that do not have the people's interest at heart. They don't even pretend too. The Clintons have no beliefs except those that they are paid to support. And they are being paid handsomely to do so.

We cannot allow this to happen to America. We don't need Hilary and her ilk. We need somebody to stand up to this.

FDR isn't coming over that hill, but we can do so much better than Clinton:

"

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred. "

A dynasty? This isn't multiple generations of silver spooned heirs passing higher office down like grandpa's dog tags. Both Bill and Hillary are extremely well educated and have spent virtually their entire lives in govt service.

Hillary's resume stacks up against anyone's. I'm not a supporter - I'm a Liz Warrren fan and am still bitter about Hillary's tactics in '07-'08, but I think you're the whole corruption angle too far. Hillary isn't selling govt policy out to CGI donors. Hat Fox News conspiracy crap.

 

[tom22406]

My reason for not voting for her is she is a corporate Democrat,is somewhat more hawkish than President Barack Obama on foreign-policy issues and has a pretty weak civil liberties record.

OK see that's a legit critique. So is Saints' opposition to her on Citizens United (though his phrasing is. a little dramatic for me.)I would like you to explain though, how in terms of specific policy, a corporate Democrat differs from a non corporate Democrat. Is it simply a matter of supporting free trade?

Are you asking how someone like Warren would govern over someone like Hillary?

Seems pretty clear to me the difference between these types.

 

[The Commish]

The problem with you guys is that you see Hillary as Cersei; I see her as Daenerys.

Actually, the problem here seems to be you focus on words and others (like myself) focus on actions. When those two don't match the opinions aren't going to match. There's no need to vilify the woman anymore than there's a need to constantly excuse her behavior. Just accept it all for what it is and be honest with ourselves about it. I don't think she's an evil person by any stretch, but I think she's absolutely proven, via her actions, that she's about one thing....being President of the United States and she'll do whatever it takes to get that done. She's in it for Hillary.

There's a sharp contrast between Hillary (when she actually makes herself available) and Bernie at the moment. Watch it closely. If you have an open mind, you'll see exactly what I am talking about.

 

[The Commish]

But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions.

Hillary doesn't need a magic wand or even a constitutional amendment. If a conservative SCOTUS member retires she can replace him with someone who would vote to overturn Citizens United, that 5-4 decision goes the other way and voila: campaign finance reform is achieved.

THIS is "campaign finance reform"? Putting it back to the old ####ty way it was before this new ####ty way it is? Really??

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

I think it is even more scary to suggest that Hilary actually shares the values of the foreign governments and large corporations the Clintons are constantly raising from instead of is just letting them curry favor.

Yeah it would be, and I NEVER suggested that. I'm talking about Hillary's campaign donors, not about contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which have no influence on Hillary, despite your (unfounded, without any evidence) claims to the contrary.

you're such a ####### joke. Asserting that payments to Bill and the Clinton foundation have no influence on Hilary is about as naive as it gets.

We're talking about a family that takes absurd amounts of money from overseas and large corporate donors. To act like Hilary is some stand-alone entity from Bill or the foundation is the height of delusion. She is only in this conversation because of her husband, whom is raising vast sums from entities opposed to the American people.

You're the guy making one unfounded accusation after another, with no evidence whatsoever. I have asked again and again what decisions Hillary made that went against the advice of the State Department or other governmental agencies? What evidence is there that she was "influenced" in any way whatsoever? What evidence is there that she acted in a specific manner different from previous Secretaries of State? You claim that it's all obvious, and I am naïve as it gets for wanting more evidence before I assume she is guilty and corrupt. And yet I'm the ####### joke here. You're so blinded by your hatred of all things establishment that you assume that anyone who is tied to corporate America is automatically guilty.

Did you bother to read the IBT article or did you read the headline and just dismiss it?

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

Now, how about money paid directly to Bill?

At the same time that Clinton was approving massive arms deals to hostile countries, Bill Clinton was making the rounds on the speaking circuit being paid as much as $625,000 for each event. These events were sponsored by companies like Boeing, General Electric, and Lockheed Martin. At one event, MSNBC hosts Mika Brzeninski and Joe Scarborough served as the emcees of the event while their employer – General Electric – reaped huge benefits from Hillary’s deals with these countries.

Another great example is when Goldman Sachs paid Bill $200,000 to speak at an event at the same time that they owned a part of defense contractor Hawker Beechcraft, who received a $675 million deal less than two months after Bill’s speech.

 

[timschochet]

I read the story. The flaw is the line "the deal appeared to collide with the documented concerns of the State Depatment about the repressive policies of the Saudi family".

Here's the problem: every US President in recent memory, from Reagan on down, has had close ties to the Saudi family, and everyone of them have completed sales of weapons, and Israel is always agitated about it, and our areospace companies like Boeing always profit by it. When the Bushes were President, Saudi princes practically lived at the White House; that's how often they visited.

Now you can question this entire policy and that would be a worthy discussion IMO. But using it in order to vilify Hillary Clinton as especially corrupt makes no sense in light of the history. And again there's no evidence.

 

[The Commish]

So, in other words, the "others do it too" rebuttal.

 

[Hang 10]

Did the Saudis ever donate 10 million dollars to the Bush ranch? Just wondering.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Did the Saudis ever donate 10 million dollars to the Bush ranch? Just wondering.

So the The CGI = the Bush ranch now?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I read the story. The flaw is the line "the deal appeared to collide with the documented concerns of the State Depatment about the repressive policies of the Saudi family".

Here's the problem: every US President in recent memory, from Reagan on down, has had close ties to the Saudi family, and everyone of them have completed sales of weapons, and Israel is always agitated about it, and our areospace companies like Boeing always profit by it. When the Bushes were President, Saudi princes practically lived at the White House; that's how often they visited.

Now you can question this entire policy and that would be a worthy discussion IMO. But using it in order to vilify Hillary Clinton as especially corrupt makes no sense in light of the history. And again there's no evidence.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

just a big coincidence that the 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a much larger increase in US arm sales than the countries that didn't donate? Us Patriots fans could have used you over in the Shark Pool since the Wells Report came out.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I read the story. The flaw is the line "the deal appeared to collide with the documented concerns of the State Depatment about the repressive policies of the Saudi family".

Here's the problem: every US President in recent memory, from Reagan on down, has had close ties to the Saudi family, and everyone of them have completed sales of weapons, and Israel is always agitated about it, and our areospace companies like Boeing always profit by it. When the Bushes were President, Saudi princes practically lived at the White House; that's how often they visited.

Now you can question this entire policy and that would be a worthy discussion IMO. But using it in order to vilify Hillary Clinton as especially corrupt makes no sense in light of the history. And again there's no evidence.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

just a big coincidence that the 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a much larger increase in US arm sales than the countries that didn't donate? Us Patriots fans could have used you over in the Shark Pool since the Wells Report came out.

You really believe that these arms sales are affected by donations to CGI?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I read the story. The flaw is the line "the deal appeared to collide with the documented concerns of the State Depatment about the repressive policies of the Saudi family".

Here's the problem: every US President in recent memory, from Reagan on down, has had close ties to the Saudi family, and everyone of them have completed sales of weapons, and Israel is always agitated about it, and our areospace companies like Boeing always profit by it. When the Bushes were President, Saudi princes practically lived at the White House; that's how often they visited.

Now you can question this entire policy and that would be a worthy discussion IMO. But using it in order to vilify Hillary Clinton as especially corrupt makes no sense in light of the history. And again there's no evidence.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

just a big coincidence that the 16 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a much larger increase in US arm sales than the countries that didn't donate? Us Patriots fans could have used you over in the Shark Pool since the Wells Report came out.

You really believe that these arms sales are affected by donations to CGI?

I believe that donations to the Clinton Foundation is the gateway to access to the Clintons. Do you really think these middle eastern countries donate the money because they care about fighting AIDs, climate change and empowering women? I think there is little doubt these donors think it has a positive affect.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been catching this reporter's column in the WaPo it's pretty interesting, obviously the Hillary campaign has been one of his focuses:

Hillary Clinton’s team takes another hit on media briefingsAs recounted here, the Telegraph of Nashua, N.H., last week published an editorial blasting the worthlessness of a Clinton campaign conference call. A taste:

Clinton operatives held a conference call about efforts the campaign is making to bulk up a social media outreach campaign and plans to build working groups that are – get this – based on specific issues rather than the traditional county-by-county breakdown.
We’ll give you a moment to recover from the impact of such revelatory news.
To keep this style of Clinton coverage going, CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood has turned in a piece titled, “How’s Hillary doing? Wish we could tell you.”

I’ve been inside Hillary Clinton’s national campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. I’ve talked with “senior officials” about her bid for the White House. They sat in these chairs. Wish I could tell you more. But they said very little. Notice that I typed very little and not “very little,” because under the ground rules of Thursday’s briefing reporters were not allowed to quote their words directly. You’re not missing much.
Campaign aides dished out information in broad categories, as Harwood explained: “Her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, will play roles in her campaign. Can’t say exactly what, or when,” wrote Harwood of the aides’ limited disclosures.

Compare that treatment with a far less sneering version in Time magazine, which also attended a recent briefing at Clinton HQ:

Hillary Clinton will gradually ramp up her campaign throughout the summer, but it will be months before she turns completely to a more orthodox model replete with a packed public schedule of billboard events and the regular appearance of husband Bill and daughter Chelsea, top Clinton campaign officials said on Thursday.
A write-up in the New York Times played it straight in some parts …

The opening phase of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, with its sporadic and somewhat sheltered schedule of small round-table discussions, is coming to a close, her aides said Thursday.
Beginning with a June 13 rally where she plans to lay out a more detailed rationale for her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton is expected to begin detailing policy proposals, interacting with larger groups of voters at town hall settings and speaking to even bigger crowds of Democrats, mainly in the early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the aides said.
… and also ripped the campaign aides: “And they provided little else in the way of candor, other than to acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton, who performs better when she is not overscheduled, would still have a long way to go to ramp up to a full-blown general election-style pace.”

Media organizations are at the wrong end of a power dynamic vis-a-vis the Clinton campaign: They number in the hundreds — thousands, perhaps — and they’re all vying for whatever meal scraps they can scrounge up. There aren’t too many levers that reporters can pull to change that imbalance. Publicly chiding the campaign’s briefings is one of them, however.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/05/29/hillary-clintons-team-takes-another-hit-on-media-briefings/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The trouble with covering Hillary, part 529CNBC's John Harwood attends a briefing at Hillary Clinton's Brooklyn headquarters:

I've been inside Hillary Clinton's national campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. ... I've talked with "senior officials" about her bid for the White House. ... Wish I could tell you more. But they said very little. ... Notice that I typed very little and not "very little," because under the ground rules of Thursday's briefing reporters were not allowed to quote their words directly. ... You're not missing much. ... The former secretary of state plans to kick off the heavy-rhetoric stage of her campaign on June 13. I can't say where or what time because the senior officials wouldn't say. ... She plans to lay out some policy proposals after that. Can't say which ones. ... She'll take questions from reporters. Can't say how often. ... She'll start having rallies. Not too many, because the election's a long way away.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/the-trouble-with-covering-hillary-part-207903.html

How's Hillary doing? Wish we could tell youI've been inside Hillary Clinton's national campaign headquarters in Brooklyn.

I've talked with "senior officials" about her bid for the White House. They sat in these chairs.

Wish I could tell you more. But they said very little.

Notice that I typed very little and not "very little," because under the ground rules of Thursday's briefing reporters were not allowed to quote their words directly.

You're not missing much.

The former secretary of state plans to kick off the heavy-rhetoric stage of her campaign on June 13. I can't say where or what time because the senior officials wouldn't say.

She plans to lay out some policy proposals after that. Can't say which ones.

She'll take questions from reporters. Can't say how often.

She'll start having rallies. Not too many, because the election's a long way away. But some.

She might take a summer vacation, which means reporters covering her can, too. Don't know when, but one senior official observed that summer vacations traditionally occur in mid-August.

Her aides are organizing furiously in the early battlegrounds of the nomination fight (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) because they are competing in every state. They take the primary challenges of Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and perhaps others very seriously.

They are also taking their Republican opposition very seriously—some in the sprawling GOP field more seriously than others. Can't specify which ones.

They are raising lots and lots of money and are pleased with how much is pouring in. But they absolutely, positively are NOT seeking to raise $2 billion, which some journalists have reported is their goal.

They are building a large digital constituency for their efforts to communicate and mobilize voters on social media. Are they starting with the lists from President Barack Obama's organization, and Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign? Can't say for sure, but they're exploring lots of lists.

Her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, will play roles in her campaign. Can't say exactly what, or when.

She's feeling more in control of her campaign effort this time around, unlike 2008 when she sometimes felt the campaign was controlling her.

Controversies over her emails as secretary of state or the Clinton Foundation have not inflicted significant political damage. That's because voters who might support her see the controversies as politically motivated.

She might even be able to expand the roster of battleground states beyond those Obama targeted. Can't say which ones.

I'd show you pictures of the office and desks where campaign officials do their jobs, but the post-briefing tour was deemed off-the-record.

There will be more briefings, however. Stay tuned.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102717374

This is the humble building where Hillary's simple, grass roots movements is reaching out to everyday American voters.

 

[Mister CIA]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

When comparing resumes, James Webb's has a little more shine on it.

Expecting to receive my "James Webb 2016 - Leadership You Can Trust" bumpersticker in the mail soon.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/26671431/article-Clinton-and-Mason--perfect-together----Councilwoman-talks-to-presidential-candidate-

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton fired up her 2016 presidential campaign at the Women in the World Summit in New York City, she began a series of smaller invitation-only fund-raisers. Hoboken Councilwoman Beth Mason was invited to one of five $2,700 per-ticket fund-raisers by Susan Thomases, an attorney that represented Clinton when she was First Lady.

After she and Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton served as U.S. Senator for New York and most recently, secretary of state under President Barack Obama.

Clinton scheduled five fundraisers over two days in April, events which have been described as low-key affairs in private homes hosted by a number of longtime supporters. She also scheduled several in Washington D.C. in April, and has more set in New York City for early June.

Some of the hosts for these events included Lisa Perry, a prominent Clinton supporter; Pace Gallery founder Arne Glimcher and his wife Milly, who supported Obama in 2008; and Doug Teitelbaum, founder of Homewood Capital LLC, another long time Clinton supporter.

Among her following, Clinton retains strong support. Mason said she always has been a strong Clinton supporter.

Mason and her husband are also major financial contributors to the Democratic party.

A meet and greet

Mason called it “a meet and greet” that allowed her to have an extended conversation with Clinton.

“There were [fewer] than 100 people,” Mason said, noting that she and Clinton had already a working relationship. “I worked with the Clintons before and I have known Hillary for more than 20 years. I supported her last time she ran for president.”

Clinton is a huge advocate for women’s rights, including equal pay.

“I have two daughters, and this is a big thing,” Mason said. “I want my girls to participate and get involved in this election. They will be voting for the first time for president, and Hillary is a good role model. She represents the concept of equality. She would be the first woman president. This would allow us to catch up with a number of other countries around the world. We’re behind on that.”

Mason said she has followed Clinton’s career with admiration. Clinton is consistent in her actions, Mason said.

“She has experience as secretary of state and first lady that other candidates do not have,” Mason said. “This is needed today, especially with the international situation we’re in. People are frightened and need someone who can deal with these problems. Hillary has a plan that can help address these concerns.”

But her conversation with Clinton at the fundraiser was not about gushing, but about practical issues both women had in common, Mason said.

“We talked about small business,” Mason said. “As a small business owner myself, I know some of the problems faced. Hoboken has a lot of small business and they are facing a lot of challenges. This is particularly true since (the downturn in the economy in) 2008. She said she has a plan for that.”

Education was also another topic they touched upon, and the need to bolster educational opportunities on every grade level from preschool to college.

“That’s our future, and we have to hope to make the future better so that young people can carry on,” Mason said.

Another issue involved how the world is changing under the impact of technology.

“She wants to build an economy of tomorrow, not yesterday,” Mason said.

The event lasted more than an hour, and gave those who attended a glimpse into the Clinton campaign.

“She is more than ready for this campaign,” Mason said.

Clinton connected with each of the people there, trying to bring them all on board and make them all feel needed, Mason said.

“She talked to each of us one on one,” Mason said. “For me, it was great to know her and see her grow.”

 

[timschochet]

A pretty fair bio of our next President:

http://www.biography.com/people/hillary-clinton-9251306#early-years

Early Years

Hillary Clinton was born Hillary Diane Rodham on October 26, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois. She was raised in Park Ridge, Illinois, a picturesque suburb located 15 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. Hillary was the firstborn child of Hugh Rodham, a prosperous fabric store owner, and Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham; she has two younger brothers, Hugh Jr. (born 1950) and Anthony (born 1954).

As a young woman, Hillary was active in young Republican groups and campaigned for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in 1964. She was inspired to work in some form of public service after hearing a speech in Chicago by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and became a Democrat in 1968.

Hillary attended Wellesley College, where she was active in student politics and was elected senior class president before graduating in 1969. She then attended Yale Law School, where she met Bill Clinton. After graduating with honors in 1973, she went on to enroll at the Yale Child Study Center, where she took courses on children and medicine and completed one year of post-graduate study.

During her summers as a college student, Hillary worked at a variety of jobs. In 1971, she first came to Washington, D.C. to work on U.S. Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers. In the summer of 1972, she worked in the western states for the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern.

In the spring of 1974, Rodham became a member of the presidential impeachment inquiry staff, advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives during the Watergate scandal. After President Richard M. Nixon resigned in August, she became a faculty member of the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, where her Yale classmate and boyfriend Bill Clinton was teaching as well.

 

[timschochet]

Marriage to Bill Clinton

Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, at their home in Fayetteville. Before their engagement, Clinton secretly purchased a small house that Hillary had once remarked that she liked. When he proposed marriage to her and she accepted, he revealed that they owned the house. Their daughter, Chelsea Victoria, was born on February 27, 1980.

In 1976, Hillary worked on Jimmy Carter's successful campaign for president while husband Bill was elected attorney general of Arkansas. Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas in 1978 at age 32, lost reelection in 1980, but came back to win in 1982, 1984, 1986 (when the term of office was expanded from two to four years) and 1990.

Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and, in 1977, was appointed to part-time chairman of the Legal Services Corporation by President Carter. As first lady of Arkansas for a dozen years (1979–1981, 1983–1992), she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund. She also served on the boards of TCBY and Wal-Mart. In 1988 and 1991, The National Law Journal named her one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America.

 

[timschochet]

First Lady

During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary emerged as a dynamic and valued partner, and during his subsequent presidency, Hillary took on far more than the traditional role of the first lady. In 1993 Bill selected her to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. The controversial commission produced a complicated plan that never came to the floor of either house. It was abandoned in September 1994.

Despite this failure, Hillary's involvement deepened her interest in health care, and combining her new-found experience with her past work involving child- and family-advocacy groups she championed a number of related causes. In 1997 she was influential in the creation creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provided state funding for children whose parents could not afford to pay for their health care, and she was also instrumental in the passing of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, a series of reforms aimed at American adoption and foster-care systems.

Hillary also used her influence as first lady to support various women's causes. Working with then attorney general Janet Reno, in 1995 she helped create the Violence Against Women office in Department of Justice, and working with then secretary of state Madeline Albright she traveled extensively to nations around the world to promote equal rights for women.

But Hillary's tenure as first lady was not without its controversies. In 1993, she and her husband were implicated in a Department of Justice investigation relating to the Whitewater real estate project in Arkansas. The project's bank, Morgan Guaranty Savings and Loan failed, costing the federal government $73 million. Whitewater later became the subject of congressional hearings and an independent counsel investigation, and in January 1996 Hillary was compelled to appear before a federal grand jury. No charges were ever filed against her.

Trouble arose again in 1998, when the White House became engulfed in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Although Hillary publicly supported her husband during the ensuing fallout, she was reported to have considered leaving her husband. Articles of impeachment were brought against Bill Clinton later that year, but in February 1999 the U.S. Senate failed to convict him and he remained in office for the remainder of his term

 

[timschochet]

Senate and First Presidential Bid

With her husband limited to two terms in the White House, Hillary Clinton decided she would seek the U.S. Senate seat from New York, held by outgoing Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was retiring after four terms. Despite early problems, and charges of carpet bagging, Clinton beat popular Republican Rick Lazio by a surprisingly wide margin: 55 percent to 43 percent. When she was sworn in on January 3, 2001, Clinton became the first wife of a president to seek and win national office and the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. During her first term, she picked up where she left off, devoting her efforts to health care and children's and women's rights. in 2003, she also published a best-selling memoir, Living History.

In 2006 Clinton easily won reelection to a second term in Senate. Early the following year, however, she announced plans to make a new addition to the list of firsts on her political résumé—to be elected the first female president of the United States. After beginning her campaign as the front-runner for the nomination during the Democratic primaries, she was eventually edged out by Barack Obama in June 2008 and ended her campaign several days later. Obama won the general election that November.

 

[timschochet]

U.S. Secretary of State

Shortly after winning the U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama nominated Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. She accepted the nomination and was officially approved by the Senate as the 67th U.S. secretary of state on January 21, 2009.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton used her position to make women's rights and human rights a central talking point of U.S. initiatives. She became one of the most traveled secretaries of state in American history and promoted the use of social media to convey the country's positions.

Clinton also led U.S. diplomatic efforts around the world, including during the Arab Spring and the 2011 military intervention in the Libyan Civil War. In the fight against terrorism, she was a strong supporter of President Obama in his decisions regarding military support for Afghanistan, and also for the use of American special forces in the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

But as was the case during her time as first lady, in 2012 Clinton faced scandal once again, when the State Department came under investigation following a deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others. An independent panel issued a report about the Benghazi attack, which found "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" at the State Department.

 

[timschochet]

Health Issues

Clinton, who said she took responsibility for security at the outpost in Benghazi, was scheduled to testify about the attack before Congress in December 2012. She canceled her scheduled testimony, however, citing a stomach virus and, later, a concussion that she suffered after fainting (the cause of which was later reported as dehydration). Some members of Congress questioned the timing of Clinton's illnesses, including Representative Allen West, who stated that he believed the secretary of state was suffering from "a case of Benghazi flu" on the day she was scheduled to testify.

On December 30, 2012, Clinton was hospitalized with a blod clot related to the concussion that she had suffered earlier in the month. She was released from a New York hospital on January 2, 2013, after receiving treatment, and soon recovered and returned to work.

 

[timschochet]

Benghazi Testimony and Resignation

Clinton's testimony on the Benghazi attack came on January 23, 2013. Speaking to members of the House Foreign Relations Committee, she defended her actions while taking full responsibility for the incident and was moved to tears when discussing the American citizens who were killed in Benghazi. "As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," she told the House, adding, "I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure."

Since taking office in 2009, Clinton had repeatedly stated that she was only interested in serving one term as secretary of state. She officially stepped down from her post at the State Department on February 1, 2013.

 

[timschochet]

Bid for 2016 Presidency

In early March 2015, Clinton faced controversy and criticism when it was revealed that she had used her personal email address to handle official government business during her time as secretary of state. In a news conference held at the United Nations, speaking initially of gender equality and the political situation in Iran, Clinton stated that she had utilized her personal email for convenience as allowed by State Department protocol. She later turned over all governmental correspondence to the Obama administration while deleting messages that could be construed as personal.

After much speculation and assumptions over whether Clinton would run for the U.S. presidency, her plans were made official in the spring of 2015. On April 12, Clinton's campaign chairperson John D. Podesta announced via email that the former secretary of state is entering the race to secure the Democratic presidential nomination for the 2016 elections. This was immediately followed by an online campaign clip, with Clinton herself announcing at the end of the video that she's running for president. She is considered a front-runner and, if successful, would be the first woman to earn the nomination for a major party's presidential bid.