Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.
On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."
Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.
"If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.
Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement Tuesday the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics."
Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.
S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.
Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed.
Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.
American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation - a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure.
By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money - a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.
"Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.
Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.
Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP."
Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed."
Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank."
Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.
Earlier this month, State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau acknowledged that agency officials are "regularly in touch with a range of outside individuals and organizations, including nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks and others." But Trudeau said the State Department was not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.
In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.
Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.
Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.
The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.
Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.
MAC AIDs officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.
When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team.
Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.
"The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.
Riquende wrote: One day, something actually scandalous will emerge from the whole Clinton email farrago. And on that day, the world will just roll their eyes and shrug, having become entirely inured to Republican 'outrage'
That is the unfortunate truth. People have been crying "wolf" for so long regarding the Clintons, that when a truly Big Bad Wolf does come along, nobody will care.
Kind of depends on the source. If it's coming from somewhere like cons. talk radio, the perverts at FOX News, or Congressional Republicans, their motives are immediately suspect given that they've wasted their credibility on transparent attempts to undermine and delegitimize Obama (Similarly, you can't really take news from somewhere like the Huffington Post seriously for the same reason on the other side of the spectrum)
But if and when a publication with some semblance of objectivity reports that it has uncovered or confirmed a Clinton scandal worth note, I will pay attention. Washington Post is usually my barometer, I'm sure everyone has their own.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/23 22:26:19
Ahtman wrote: Eternal hatred of The Russian? What an odd thing to write.
But a bitchin' title for the next song from my all-feline metal band Cat-aphonic Cat-astrophe!
Novemember can't come soon enough. I'm so sick of my mother-in-law complaining about Obama's secret plan to unleash Sharia Law on all of us. (yes, l am Canadian)
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Because apparently nobody in the Trump organization could see why bringing more attention to the issue while simultaneously using legal strong arm tactics might be a bad idea....
Ouze wrote: Hey, you forgot to put these lines in yellow:
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009.
But Trudeau said the State Department was not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.
d-usa wrote: No rules were broken, but people think it looks bad.
Now repeat that for 25 years.
So, just because nothing legal was found to be broken... Clinton is the perfect match to be our next President....
Jesus, that's a low bar.
No, her lack of wrongdoing in this situation doesn't make her the perfect match to be president, it simply fails to exclude her. What makes her a perfect match is her lifetime of experience and accomplishments.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Frazzled wrote: Showing strength is the only thing that works in the region since the dawn of time. Please show another strategy that has worked in the region. It worked for the Persians. It worked for Romans. It worked for the Mongols. it worked for the Ottomans.
There's something deeply ridiculous about the argument that a strategy that worked in a region 2,500 years ago is the strategy that's sure to work today. As if nothing had changed in 2,500 years. I mean, forget about the decline of the nomadic tribes. Forget about the mass conversion to a whole new religion. Forget about the introduction of new world technologies like motor cars and running water. No, instead let's just think that 'the region' is never changing.
And then lets use that same logic to talk about how to take over the Americas. Let's go get us some sailing boats and start landing expiditions and colonies up and down the east coasts of North and South America. The locals will give some resistance, but they'll be no match for our muskets, because after all that worked last time. Disease should do most of the work, because the natives have been isolated from Europe and Asia for a long time and I'm sure nothing has changed.
Prestor Jon wrote: Whether or not the Foundation is directly contributing money to Hillary's campaign the appearance of direct conflicts of interest arising from the Foundation accepting donations from foreign governments is already negatively impacting her campaign and influencing voters. Perceptions can be more important than facts in political campaigns.
This statement is basically saying that there's nothing here and we know there's nothing here, but we're flinging mud and it's working.
Is this because if the foreigners first put the money in to a US registered company that they own outright, and then have that US registered company make the donation, that makes the substance of the deal actually okay, as well a legally okay?
Or is it because, for some reason, the regular nature of US politics only becomes awfully corrupt when it is done by a Clinton?
Anyhow, here's a really good quote from the article about how money and politics works at the top level.
“You know the politicians,” said Wilson Chen about the company’s history of donations. “They always ask for help.”
Wilson Chen, who unlike his sister and brother-in-law is a U.S. citizen, stated that APIC has never asked for anything specific in return for its money. However, he said, the connections between the company and prominent U.S. politicians gave those involved with APIC stature in Asia.
When asked whether Gordon Tang was unhappy with the donation to Rise to Rise USA given Jeb Bush’s quick defeat, Chen said no: It was simply about helping a friend."
The way in which money and politics mix together should bother everyone. However, the idea most people have that it is about direct payments for direct favours agreed to before the payment is way too simplistic. Stuff like Blagojevich selling the senate seat was amazing because it was such an overt piece of bribery. The idea that Clinton would say or think 'I am selling access to me through donations to the Clinton Foundation" plays on that misunderstanding, and it end up with people looking at this in a very strange manner.
What actually happens is that there is an informal, unstated expectation that you are sympathetic when I ask for something, and I will be sympathetic when you ask for something. It is expected that rich friends will give to your campaign, and that you will give them an audience and a sympathetic ear when they have an interest in some policy debate. Consider it like if you moved house, you'd ask friends to help and most would. You wouldn't sit down and say 'okay, I will give you three hours of labour, in exchange I expect pizza and a beer afterwards, and at some unspecified future time I expect approx. three hours of labour in return which may or many not include moving'. Instead, friends help when you ask. And the people who make the effort to help, well you're likely to help them with their taxes when they ask a few months later. Whereas the friend who gave a weak excuse and bailed, well when that guy asks to borrow $100 until next pay day, well you'll probably make up an excuse of your own.
Does this affect how policy is written, and ends up favouring the system towards the wealthy more than a clean democracy would? Of course, and this makes it a bad thing. But does this mean Clinton should be singled out for this? No, nor should anyone be singled out. The issue is one of culture and structure, it is simply how the game is played. Someone who refused to play the game in this way would simply be shut out entirely.
To go back to another one of the Clinton 'scandals', remember this is a lady who can give a Q&A session and charge more than $200,000. But now we're expected to believe that she'd sell access to herself as Sec. of State for $100,000 donations to her charity. It's incredibly silly.
Instead, just read the quote about the $1.3 million from the Chinese nationals given to Jeb Bush's Right to Rise PAC. That's how it works, rich people who have politicians as friends expect to donate money, and politicians expect their rich friends to pay up. And in turn that friendship creates an expectation of an audience and a sympathetic ear when the rich person needs it.
That story is as shocking as uncovering that more than half of the people I helped with their taxes last year were people who helped me move*.
*This is entirely hypothetical, I haven't moved house in five years and won't move again. And while I am an accountant I'm probably the worst tax accountant you could ever ask for.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 03:39:40
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ouze wrote: Hey, you forgot to put these lines in yellow:
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009.
But Trudeau said the State Department was not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.
d-usa wrote: No rules were broken, but people think it looks bad.
Now repeat that for 25 years.
So, just because nothing legal was found to be broken... Clinton is the perfect match to be our next President....
Jesus, that's a low bar.
No, her lack of wrongdoing in this situation doesn't make her the perfect match to be president, it simply fails to exclude her. What makes her a perfect match is her lifetime of experience and accomplishments.
It certainly erodes the trust factor with Clinton...
I mean, that recent AP report above represents, at the very least, proof of Clinton’s favoritism toward donors of her Foundation.
If you don't see that as legit conflict of interest... then, there really isn't anything that Clinton does will 'ever be wrong' in your eyes.
I mean, even Politico, published a report that ethicists believes that Clinton team violated the ‘spirit’ of pledge. The pledge states:
“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate,” Clinton wrote in a Jan. 5, 2009, letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin.
Clinton and her cronies knewwhat they were doing.
In 40k gaming, I view the Clintons as TFG willing to rule-lawyer their way.
To go back to another one of the Clinton 'scandals', remember this is a lady who can give a Q&A session and charge more than $200,000. But now we're expected to believe that she'd sell access to herself as Sec. of State for $100,000 donations to her charity. It's incredibly silly.
Instead, just read the quote about the $1.3 million from the Chinese nationals given to Jeb Bush's Right to Rise PAC. That's how it works, rich people who have politicians as friends expect to donate money, and politicians expect their rich friends to pay up. And in turn that friendship creates an expectation of an audience and a sympathetic ear when the rich person needs it.
That story is as shocking as uncovering that more than half of the people I helped with their taxes last year were people who helped me move*.
*This is entirely hypothetical, I haven't moved house in five years and won't move again. And while I am an accountant I'm probably the worst tax accountant you could ever ask for.
I *do* have a problem with Chinese nationals donated to Jeb's Super PAC. Very much bigly have a problem.
But, the Clintons using their Foundation as a means to encourage favoritisms is something else altogether.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 03:45:09
whembly wrote: In 40k gaming, I view the Clintons as TFG willing to rule-lawyer their way.
I view the Clintons as the people who keep winning tournaments, and that really pisses off the other rules lawyer, power build players who keep coming up second best.
"That damn Clinton keeps taking the most powerful builds and using every rules exploit she can think of." "Isn't that what you do?" "Yeah but it's really terrible when she does it."
I *do* have a problem with Chinese nationals donated to Jeb's Super PAC. Very much bigly have a problem.
But, the Clintons using their Foundation as a means to encourage favoritisms is something else altogether.
I beseech you from the bowels of Christ to actually fething read the explanation I just gave. Money is part of the friendship between rich people and politicians. Also part of the friendship is that those people will get access and a sympathetic ear. This is how it works.
It is all good and well to say this isn't a great state of affairs for a democracy, and I'd agree. But to single out Clinton is very silly. The only way her instance is different is that the money went to her charity, and not to a campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That's in Colorado... where Gary F'n Johnson might even pull a win there.
Huh? Johnson is polling 14 or 15% in Colorado? Johnson would have to gain 25 points just to be in with a chance.
How can you simultaneously claim that Clinton's 7 point is insurmountable, and at the same time talk about Johnson gaining 25 points in Colorado?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 08:38:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
jasper76 wrote: Does anyone think minds are changeable at this point in terms of the Presidential election?
Do you think the debates can have a meaningful effect on the polls given how much we've been exposed already to Trump, and also Clinton over decades?
The answer to your questions are No and No.
I'm making a sweeping generalization here
but I think most Americans have resigned themselves to a Clinton administration and this is their thinking:
Yes, there's a few dodgy emails, yes, there might be another Iran-Contra, yes Clinton will probably blow up some camels in the Middle East with a few cruise missiles now and again, yes, there'll be minor scandals in her team - a junior treasury secretary might have to resign after being caught in bed with a panda or something.
But America has survived all that for decades, and the country is still going. No big deal, American institutions can deal with Clinton as Presdient.
Trump on the other hand is wild, unpredictable, risks damaging the status quo etc etc
Clinton is the best of a bad bunch, better the devil you know and all that...
That's what I think most Americans are thinking, the non-aligned members of the public who only care about politics every 4 years...
They are the people who'll win it for Clinton, not the diehards in the GOP.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ahtman wrote: Eternal hatred of The Russian? What an odd thing to write.
But a bitchin' title for the next song from my all-feline metal band Cat-aphonic Cat-astrophe!
Novemember can't come soon enough. I'm so sick of my mother-in-law complaining about Obama's secret plan to unleash Sharia Law on all of us. (yes, l am Canadian)
Obama-phobia has spread to the Great White North? Sorry about that.
Also, sorry about the rafts filled with our illegal American immigrants washing up on your shores the other day.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 12:49:08
jasper76 wrote: Does anyone think minds are changeable at this point in terms of the Presidential election?
Do you think the debates can have a meaningful effect on the polls given how much we've been exposed already to Trump, and also Clinton over decades?
The answer to your questions are No and No.
I'm making a sweeping generalization here
but I think most Americans have resigned themselves to a Clinton administration and this is their thinking:
Yes, there's a few dodgy emails, yes, there might be another Iran-Contra, yes Clinton will probably blow up some camels in the Middle East with a few cruise missiles now and again, yes, there'll be minor scandals in her team - a junior treasury secretary might have to resign after being caught in bed with a panda or something.
But America has survived all that for decades, and the country is still going. No big deal, American institutions can deal with Clinton as Presdient.
Trump on the other hand is wild, unpredictable, risks damaging the status quo etc etc
Clinton is the best of a bad bunch, better the devil you know and all that...
That's what I think most Americans are thinking, the non-aligned members of the public who only care about politics every 4 years...
They are the people who'll win it for Clinton, not the diehards in the GOP.
I do still wonder if the combo of Johnson and Stein can reverse Clinton's current fortunes. Johnson seemed like he might have some appeal to the non-WWE wing of the Republican base, but alas that doesn't seem to have gone too far, and I doubt he makes the debates. Stein is coming from the Chomsky Left, but hasn't been able to grab much support at all (no surprise here)
I don't think Johnson will make the debates, certainly Stein will not without a rules change. I do tend to think that if both were allowed in the debate, it would probably work to Trumps disadvantage from a debate scorer perspective, but to his advantage in the polls, as any potential bumps for Johnson and Stein would most likely be coming out of the Clinton pool moreso than the Trump pool.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/24 14:01:13
whembly wrote: In 40k gaming, I view the Clintons as TFG willing to rule-lawyer their way.
I beseech you from the bowels of Christ to actually fething read the explanation I just gave. Money is part of the friendship between rich people and politicians. Also part of the friendship is that those people will get access and a sympathetic ear. This is how it works.
feth. No.
It's one thing to acknowledge that this happens... of course this happens...
It's totally another to accept this is 'OK'.
It is all good and well to say this isn't a great state of affairs for a democracy, and I'd agree. But to single out Clinton is very silly. The only way her instance is different is that the money went to her charity, and not to a campaign.
In your zeal to defend the Clintons, you're only argument is to attempt to engage in wattaboutism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That's in Colorado... where Gary F'n Johnson might even pull a win there.
Huh? Johnson is polling 14 or 15% in Colorado? Johnson would have to gain 25 points just to be in with a chance.
I said he *might*. Don't underestimate the weirdness that is Colorado.
Most of my family lives scattered around that state, and I just visited Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs (typically big conservative area) and the towns in between. Anecdotally, Trump & Clinton are really despised there. I mean on a visceral level, that I've never seen before.
So, he *might* have a chance in Colorado (and only Colorado mind you ).
How can you simultaneously claim that Clinton's 7 point is insurmountable, and at the same time talk about Johnson gaining 25 points in Colorado?
Ahtman wrote: Eternal hatred of The Russian? What an odd thing to write.
But a bitchin' title for the next song from my all-feline metal band Cat-aphonic Cat-astrophe!
Novemember can't come soon enough. I'm so sick of my mother-in-law complaining about Obama's secret plan to unleash Sharia Law on all of us. (yes, l am Canadian)
Obama-phobia has spread to the Great White North? Sorry about that.
Also, sorry about the rafts filled with our illegal American immigrants washing up on your shores the other day.
Crazy nonsense doesn't respect borders, cousin.
Americans coming North for sanctuary has been a tradition since you guys said "heck yes" and we said "feth no" to some southeast Asian campaign in the 60s. We love you guys!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
It's one thing to acknowledge that this happens... of course this happens...
It's totally another to accept this is 'OK'.
Wait, so Clinton didn't do anything technically wrong, but what she did looks bad. Since she's a Democrat, it is bad and she must stop immediately even though we've all pretty much acknowledged that this is how it works. Yet when the Republicans do something that isn't technically wrong but looks bad (like refusing to do their jobs and at least hold hearings in the President's Supreme Court nominations), that's totally cool because that's just "how it works" and "both sides are bad."
I'm glad we got that settled.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
@whembley: the number of people the Clinton foundation helps within and without the US exceeds the US population, so here we have an additional ethics dilemma to sort out, I think.
Would you be satisfied if Clinton cut all her official ties to the Clinton Foundation and turned it completely over to Chelsea or another handler?
Seems like a baby/bathwater thing to me. I do agree there is smoke here, and even the appearance of donate-to-play should be eliminated.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/24 20:24:59
Interesting that Republicans are so quick to attack an organization that is very highly regarded in terms of charitable work. Maybe they believe that government needs to get involved here?
Also, hilarious that Trump has given over $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
"It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history," Trump said in a statement.
Trump kept up the attack while speaking at a rally in Austin, Texas, Tuesday night.
"It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins," he said, adding, "The specific crimes committed to carry out that enterprise are too numerous to cover in this speech."
Frazzled wrote: Showing strength is the only thing that works in the region since the dawn of time. Please show another strategy that has worked in the region. It worked for the Persians. It worked for Romans. It worked for the Mongols. it worked for the Ottomans.
There's something deeply ridiculous about the argument that a strategy that worked in a region 2,500 years ago is the strategy that's sure to work today. As if nothing had changed in 2,500 years. I mean, forget about the decline of the nomadic tribes. Forget about the mass conversion to a whole new religion. Forget about the introduction of new world technologies like motor cars and running water. No, instead let's just think that 'the region' is never changing.
And then lets use that same logic to talk about how to take over the Americas. Let's go get us some sailing boats and start landing expiditions and colonies up and down the east coasts of North and South America. The locals will give some resistance, but they'll be no match for our muskets, because after all that worked last time. Disease should do most of the work, because the natives have been isolated from Europe and Asia for a long time and I'm sure nothing has changed.
Prestor Jon wrote: Whether or not the Foundation is directly contributing money to Hillary's campaign the appearance of direct conflicts of interest arising from the Foundation accepting donations from foreign governments is already negatively impacting her campaign and influencing voters. Perceptions can be more important than facts in political campaigns.
This statement is basically saying that there's nothing here and we know there's nothing here, but we're flinging mud and it's working.
Is this because if the foreigners first put the money in to a US registered company that they own outright, and then have that US registered company make the donation, that makes the substance of the deal actually okay, as well a legally okay?
Or is it because, for some reason, the regular nature of US politics only becomes awfully corrupt when it is done by a Clinton?
Anyhow, here's a really good quote from the article about how money and politics works at the top level.
“You know the politicians,” said Wilson Chen about the company’s history of donations. “They always ask for help.”
Wilson Chen, who unlike his sister and brother-in-law is a U.S. citizen, stated that APIC has never asked for anything specific in return for its money. However, he said, the connections between the company and prominent U.S. politicians gave those involved with APIC stature in Asia.
When asked whether Gordon Tang was unhappy with the donation to Rise to Rise USA given Jeb Bush’s quick defeat, Chen said no: It was simply about helping a friend."
The way in which money and politics mix together should bother everyone. However, the idea most people have that it is about direct payments for direct favours agreed to before the payment is way too simplistic. Stuff like Blagojevich selling the senate seat was amazing because it was such an overt piece of bribery. The idea that Clinton would say or think 'I am selling access to me through donations to the Clinton Foundation" plays on that misunderstanding, and it end up with people looking at this in a very strange manner.
What actually happens is that there is an informal, unstated expectation that you are sympathetic when I ask for something, and I will be sympathetic when you ask for something. It is expected that rich friends will give to your campaign, and that you will give them an audience and a sympathetic ear when they have an interest in some policy debate. Consider it like if you moved house, you'd ask friends to help and most would. You wouldn't sit down and say 'okay, I will give you three hours of labour, in exchange I expect pizza and a beer afterwards, and at some unspecified future time I expect approx. three hours of labour in return which may or many not include moving'. Instead, friends help when you ask. And the people who make the effort to help, well you're likely to help them with their taxes when they ask a few months later. Whereas the friend who gave a weak excuse and bailed, well when that guy asks to borrow $100 until next pay day, well you'll probably make up an excuse of your own.
Does this affect how policy is written, and ends up favouring the system towards the wealthy more than a clean democracy would? Of course, and this makes it a bad thing.
But does this mean Clinton should be singled out for this? No, nor should anyone be singled out. The issue is one of culture and structure, it is simply how the game is played. Someone who refused to play the game in this way would simply be shut out entirely.
Mud flinging is done every election because it works, much to the detriment of political discourse in the country. If the New York Times and CNN are going to report on it and pollsters are going to run polls on the public perception of Clinton's trustworthiness and corruption then it's going to be a factor in the campaign even if Republicans didn't attack Hillary over it. The Parties find everything they can to attack each other over.
I didn't express any outrage over anything in Jeb!'s campaign because like pretty much everyone else in the country I didn't care at all about Jeb! He got virtually no votes, didn't really distinguish himself in any meaningful way at any time and was ignored by everyone. If it matters I am equally outraged about foreign nationals trying to find ways to work around the FEC's ban on foreigners ability to contribute to candidates regardless of the identity of the foreigners or the candidate.
I am also outraged when Party water carriers like Sean Hannity do things like hold Townhall meetings to highlight the danger of illegal immigrant crime. I heard promotions for it on the radio on my commute the other day with Hannity literally explaining that he cherry picked the families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants just to exploit them for the emotional impact of their stories to convince the electorate that illegal immigrants committing crimes is a national problem. Deliberately misinforming the public to manufacture the perception of a fake crisis of national concern just to try to help his Party's candidate. It's deplorable, disrespectful of the audience and detrimental to the country.
We don't have cable so I don't watch any cable news but I'll check what's on the radio on my commute to see what's being talked about and listening to Hannity's show for more than a few minutes.
Someone in the US Army was using Clinton in training seminars as an internal threat like the guy who shot a bunch of people at the base in Texas as well as others. It is kind of an odd mixture of people really: whistle blowers, traitors, killers, and philanderers.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: the number of people the Clinton foundation helps within and without the US exceeds the US population, so here we have an additional ethics dilemma to sort out, I think.
Would you be satisfied if Clinton cut all her official ties to the Clinton Foundation and turned it completely over to Chelsea or another handler?
Seems like a baby/bathwater thing to me. I do agree there is smoke here, and even the appearance of donate-to-play should be eliminated.
Well... that's what her pledge was about in 2009 that posted earlier.
The fact that the Clinton Foundation is used as a "gatekeeper" to government officials should be alarming. And, the fact that she obviously broke that pledge, what's to prevent her from doing the same things as President?
At this point... nothing will stop her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: Interesting that Republicans are so quick to attack an organization that is very highly regarded in terms of charitable work. Maybe they believe that government needs to get involved here?
Highly regarded?
The Charity Watchdog groups either won't rank them because there isn't enough transparencies ( this is my shocked face ☉_☉ )
Also, hilarious that Trump has given over $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
"It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history," Trump said in a statement. Trump kept up the attack while speaking at a rally in Austin, Texas, Tuesday night. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins," he said, adding, "The specific crimes committed to carry out that enterprise are too numerous to cover in this speech."
How about you start with naming one?
... and know you know part of the reasons why I despise Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Someone in the US Army was using Clinton in training seminars as an internal threat like the guy who shot a bunch of people at the base in Texas as well as others. It is kind of an odd mixture of people really: whistle blowers, traitors, killers, and philanderers.
O.o
This can't be real...
<---laughing hysterically!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/25 00:09:55
jasper76 wrote: Does anyone think minds are changeable at this point in terms of the Presidential election?
Yes. Very few people are going to switch from Trump to Clinton or vice versa, but support for their preferred candidate can change a lot.
Remember it was less than a month ago that polls were tied between the two candidates. Things very quickly blew out to a 7 point lead to Clinton, but the important thing to note is that very few people actually changed from Trump to Clinton. What was more likely was that in the wake of the convention a lot of lukewarm liberals and centrists started to think Clinton maybe wasn't too bad, and at the same time a lot of the Vichy Republicans were finally pushed away from voting for Trump due to his ridiculous feud with the Khans and some other terrible blunders.
Do you think the debates can have a meaningful effect on the polls given how much we've been exposed already to Trump, and also Clinton over decades?
The debates are likely to have a significant impact on the race, they will either drag Trump back in to the race, or they'll be the first real nail in the coffin. But note that what matters isn't the actual debates, as they'll be watched almost entirely by political junkies who've already made their minds up. What matters is the subsequent media coverage, which will come down to over-analyzing one or two key moments from the debates, and creating a new narrative around those moments. If Trump blows up, by shouting or bickering or basically doing any of the crap he pulled in the primary debates, then that'll be the story - Trump is not 'presidential'. That will push out more of the non-crazy Republicans and there's probably no way back from there. Alternatively, Clinton will be asked about the emails, and if her answer sucks that will the media story - it is already threatening to be the only story in her campaign. That will possibly put Trump back in the race.
Of course, the most likely result will be the debates will come and go without anything really game changing coming out of them. But this has not been a campaign where likely things have happened.
It's one thing to acknowledge that this happens... of course this happens...
It's totally another to accept this is 'OK'.
As you'll see in the very next part of my post I say that this isn't okay. But you didn't even read to the fourth line before you started your reply.
In your zeal to defend the Clintons, you're only argument is to attempt to engage in wattaboutism.
Not my zeal to defend the Clinton's, but my zeal to put sense and meaning in to the political debate. "Clinton has done what powerful state leaders have done since Moses was a babe and we must punish her and only her for this' is a fething ridiculous thing.
We can certainly talk about how what she did wasn't okay. And we can talk about the systems and processes that might lead to reducing this issue in future.
I said he *might*. Don't underestimate the weirdness that is Colorado.
Bernie Sanders might declare himself as the long lost princess Anastasia Romanov. I said 'might'.
Most of my family lives scattered around that state, and I just visited Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs (typically big conservative area) and the towns in between. Anecdotally, Trump & Clinton are really despised there. I mean on a visceral level, that I've never seen before.
There's lots of anecdotes about lots of places. But the polling aggregates are still giving about 85% of the vote to either Clinton or Trump.
If Johnson drags his national support up to 15% by the deadline, smashes it in the debates, and about 25 other things go right for him then he might end up competitive in a couple of states. But we're a crazy long way from there. Trump was a long shot this time last year, but Johnson needs about 5 Trump scale longshots to come off,
Because each state different brah.
Yes, states are different, but numbers are still numbers. You can't claim that 7 points is so big that it can't be overcome, but that 25 points can be overcome, even in a single state.
Well, I mean I guess you can claim it, because you have But you shouldn't.
By the people that actually work in charity dedicated to capacity building, it is.
By Republican media hacks and the people who follow their every word, not so much.
The Charity Watchdog groups either won't rank them because there isn't enough transparencies ( this is my shocked face ☉_☉ )
Actually, that's crap. The group in question, Charity Navigator, said it won't rank the Clinton Foundation because the model used by Charity Navigator doesn't fit the Foundation model. To put it simply, Charity Navigator basically takes all the money given by the agency and divides by all the money it brings in, something higher than 80% means the organisation isn't spending too much on fundraising and administration. This doesn't work with the Clinton Foundation, because they hire their own aid workers directly.
Breaking news, Republican hacks say something bad about Clinton, then whembly reports it as meaningful.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/25 02:23:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Whembly said "The Charity Watchdog groups either won't rank them because there isn't enough transparencies ( this is my shocked face ☉_☉ )"
Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Whembly said "The Charity Watchdog groups either won't rank them because there isn't enough transparencies ( this is my shocked face ☉_☉ )"
Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
That's what you get for taking your talking points from the right wing radio entertainers.
So a watchdog group gives it an A, and the one that doesn't rate it says "a lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment". And from that you somehow spun it to indicate that it wasn't highly respected. Gotcha
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/25 02:46:25
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Whembly said "The Charity Watchdog groups either won't rank them because there isn't enough transparencies ( this is my shocked face ☉_☉ )"
Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
That's what you get for taking your talking points from the right wing radio entertainers.
Who? I work during the day, so even if I wanted to, not possible. (and I don't).
So a watchdog group gives it an A, and the one that doesn't rate it says "a lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment". And from that you somehow spun it to indicate that it wasn't highly respected. Gotcha
Prestor Jon wrote: Mud flinging is done every election because it works, much to the detriment of political discourse in the country. If the New York Times and CNN are going to report on it and pollsters are going to run polls on the public perception of Clinton's trustworthiness and corruption then it's going to be a factor in the campaign even if Republicans didn't attack Hillary over it. The Parties find everything they can to attack each other over.
Yeah, and so we accept mud flinging from politicians and their teams. But no-one here is a politician, no-one here will actually influence the election in any way. There is no reason for us to engage disingenuous lines of attack. The only thing that makes sense for anyone posting in this thread is to be as honest as possible.
I didn't express any outrage over anything in Jeb!'s campaign because like pretty much everyone else in the country I didn't care at all about Jeb! He got virtually no votes, didn't really distinguish himself in any meaningful way at any time and was ignored by everyone. If it matters I am equally outraged about foreign nationals trying to find ways to work around the FEC's ban on foreigners ability to contribute to candidates regardless of the identity of the foreigners or the candidate.
It isn't the foreign nationals trying to work their way around the system. It is the Republican party showing foreign nationals how to do it. This started with a memo from Charlie Spies, who is absolutely smack bang in the centre of power in the Republican campaign organisation. APIC made their donation a month later, following the guidance laid out by Spies.
I'm certain the exact same structures will be in place among Democrats. It isn't just a Jeb! thing. It's an everyone thing. Presidential races see about a billion spent by each side. You don't get that kind of money by taking in Sanders $27 donations. Hilariously, even Sanders knows that, his new organisation is tearing itself apart because the realists have set it up as a 501(c)(4) precisely because that allows you to unlimited donations from anonymous rich people, but the idealists want to keep taking small change and staying pure.
It's the basic nature of US politics, and it without major campaign reform it will be the way that everyone has to do business.
But apparently if people can convince themselves that it is really, especially terrible that Clinton has done it, then that will mean something to someone.
I am also outraged when Party water carriers like Sean Hannity do things like hold Townhall meetings to highlight the danger of illegal immigrant crime. I heard promotions for it on the radio on my commute the other day with Hannity literally explaining that he cherry picked the families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants just to exploit them for the emotional impact of their stories to convince the electorate that illegal immigrants committing crimes is a national problem. Deliberately misinforming the public to manufacture the perception of a fake crisis of national concern just to try to help his Party's candidate. It's deplorable, disrespectful of the audience and detrimental to the country.
It is a very shameful kind of pandering, and very dangerous as well. I have to once again return to that quote from the conservative and former Republican Avik Roy, “Conservative intellectuals, and conservative politicians, have been in kind of a bubble. We’ve had this view that the voters were with us on conservatism — philosophical, economic conservatism. In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”
It's a good piece, and well worth a read. "One insightful way to think about the nationalist vs. conservative divide is to ponder the case of Asian-Americans. If conservative values are the values of family and hard work, then Asians are the most conservative demographic group in America. They have the highest median incomes ($66,000 vs. U.S. median of $49,800), the highest percentage of college graduates (49% vs. U.S. median of 28%), and the lowest rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births (17% vs. U.S. median of 41%).
And yet, in 2012, Asian-Americans voted for Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 49 points. Hispanics, by contrast, “only” voted for Obama by a margin of 44 points.
This is the deficiency—and in many cases, the hypocrisy—of nationalists who appeal to “values voters.” They claim to be celebrating hard work and family, but they make no effort to appeal to immigrants—and non-Christians—who embrace those values in greater proportion than do those whose grandparents were born here. The appeal to “values voters,” in effect, has become a coded appeal to identity politics for white people."
Did you read my post? Because I explained all of this nonsense. "The group in question, Charity Navigator, said it won't rank the Clinton Foundation because the model used by Charity Navigator doesn't fit the Foundation model. To put it simply, Charity Navigator basically takes all the money given by the agency and divides by all the money it brings in, something higher than 80% means the organisation isn't spending too much on fundraising and administration. This doesn't work with the Clinton Foundation, because they hire their own aid workers directly. "
You went on to discover for yourself that Charity Navigator doesn't rank the Clinton Foundation because their model doesn't fit how the Clinton Foundation operates... but you still went and fell for the same nonsense yourself, measuring the work of the Clinton Foundation only by its donations, and not taking in to account the staff it directly employs to do community work.
This has to stop. How many times will you post conservative hatchet attacks here, only to have us explain to you why they are crude lies, before you'll just stop believing the next set of crude lies?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/25 03:10:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
But you shouldn't.
