|
FMguru posted:Just look at all this airtight evidence of specific Clinton wrongdoing. You're okay with high level officials to run, secure, and exclusively use their own email servers? You're fine with money flowing directly to someone's spouse from parties associated in high level deals? You have no problems with officials having untraceable oversight over which emails to hand over when investigated? I mean god drat, pretend for a minute Scott Walker is sitting in the Executive and doing any of the above and tell me it's okay.
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:
Yeah, no corruption there right?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Wait but he cut a kid's hair once because it was long. This is the game you want to play? Really? quote:Today the Washington Post has a long article (by Internet standards) about Romney's days at the Michigan private school Cranbrook. Reporter Jason Horowitz corroborated the haircut incident with five former students who gave their accounts independently of one another. Romney was never disciplined, but the recipient of the trim, John Lauber, was later expelled. Back in 1965 he was a shy teen who was teased for "presumed homosexuality." Things got worse when he returned from break with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye—a look that stood out at Cranbrook, which was largely favored by briefcase-carrying Republicans. According to what Horowitz pieced together: "Cutting a kid's hair because it was long" is a LONG way from "terrorized gay student and cut his hair while he was pinned to the floor". Hillary's a typical rich person. Mitt Romney is a loving sociopath.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Yeah, I'm sure the Qatari World Cup committee is very interested in the plight of Haitians and was expecting nothing in return from the Clintons for donating millions of dollars to their foundation. What favor are you proposing The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary were able to give in return? TheDisreputableDog posted:You're okay with high level officials to run, secure, and exclusively use their own email servers? Yes, why wouldn't I be?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Yeah, no corruption there right? Are you saying the state department approved weapons sales to the Qatar soccer team
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Bill Clinton lead the US effort to get World Cup 2022, and during that period his foundation received millions from the actual winners which are at this moment embroiled in a corruption scandal involving millions in bribes. You have to be blinded by partisanship to not find that suspicious.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Are you saying the state department approved weapons sales to the Qatar soccer team Does FIFA's terror know no bounds?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Judging by this thread and the US Pol thread, yes. Also, Fox News says bad things = Clinton's awesome/smart/cool/etc. See, this is a position that I don't understand where it comes from. (Other than blind idiot tribalism, of course.) There are a lot of people in D&D who admit that Hillary's almost certain to be the eventual Democratic nominee, yes. There are a good number who are pointing out that she holds (at least on the surface) a number of good, supportable positions on several issues, yes. There's a ton that at least grudgingly believe she's a better choice for President than all or nearly all of the current GOP clown car, absolutely. But I'm hard pressed to name more than two, maybe three people who are actually full-on supporters of hers. Because yeah, she IS scummy. She's someone who's been a federal-level politicial figure for several decades. You don't get to that level let alone stay there without doing a bunch of things that are at least questionable. Oh no, one of the most influential and powerful figures in US politics who's been around for twenty-something years has overseas connections. What a shock! And she may have used her influence to do things for people who support her? Like literally every god damned politician ever? At least the accusations back in the 90s were interesting and novel. I'd love for some kind of amazing super-candidate to come out of the woodwork and snatch the nomination (and the presidency) from her. But it's not happening. A year and a half from now, the real situation is that there's two actual drat choices on the table - one will almost certainly be Hilary (barring the super longshot of Bernie, which is a nice dream but not terribly likely) and the other is pretty much gauranteed to be someone who believes that we should go to war with Iran, cut our social safety nets completely, skew the tax structure even more heavily against those on the lower three-quarters of the income level and push the faces of every minority group in the country into the mud. I'll take someone who hides their emails over someone who openly says they'd like to re-institute sodomy laws, thank you very much. I accept she's the preferable choice, but this constant harping of how much she's loved/accepted/supported is dumb and not held up by reality. I don't like Hillary and I never will, but the last eight years have been a pretty drat good case for putting aside idealism for at least delaying the dry-loving of the American dream.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:You're okay with high level officials to run, secure, and exclusively use their own email servers? It's all bad but its all bad in the same level as everything every other candidate is doing and has done (with the possible exception of Sanders). Republican candidates have also done the private email thing. The charitable donations issue is bog standard lobbying these days and if it were illegal every single elected representative in Congress would be in jail. I mean poo poo nobody * likes * Hillary. But none of this appears disqualifyingly illegal, and that's all that matters or that anyone cares about now. Because Clinton being shady is old news.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bill Clinton lead the US effort to get World Cup 2022, and during that period his foundation received millions from the actual winners which are at this moment embroiled in a corruption scandal involving millions in bribes. You have to be blinded by partisanship to not find that suspicious. John Roberts said money is free speech so I don't see what the problem is Why do you hate freedom?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bill Clinton lead the US effort to get World Cup 2022, and during that period his foundation received millions from the actual winners which are at this moment embroiled in a corruption scandal involving millions in bribes. You have to be blinded by partisanship to not find that suspicious. Donations being made to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with the probable future president is a theory that is actually plausible (and tbh probably has some level of truth to it) compared to Arkane's insane theory of cash for arms.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
 quote:A lot of people are very excited about Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. It's not hard to figure out why: there are a lot of those progressives out there who are very concerned about economic inequality, the rise of the super-rich, the financial industry, and the role of money in American politics.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bill Clinton lead the US effort to get World Cup 2022, and during that period his foundation received millions from the actual winners which are at this moment embroiled in a corruption scandal involving millions in bribes. You have to be blinded by partisanship to not find that suspicious. So they bribed the US and The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary to not have the world cup in 2022? Is that your allegation?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:"Cutting a kid's hair because it was long" is a LONG way from "terrorized gay student and cut his hair while he was pinned to the floor". So you're assuming he was gay because he had long hair too?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
But according to some D&D posters social progress is a given??
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bill Clinton lead the US effort to get World Cup 2022, and during that period his foundation received millions from the actual winners which are at this moment embroiled in a corruption scandal involving millions in bribes. You have to be blinded by partisanship to not find that suspicious. Nintendo Kid posted:So they bribed the US and The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary to not have the world cup in 2022? Is that your allegation? I'm looking at the list of Clinton Foundation contributors on Wikipedia and just trembling at the thought of the terrible favors the Clintons must owe the founder of Slim Fast.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Donations being made to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with the probable future president is a theory that is actually plausible (and tbh probably has some level of truth to it) compared to Arkane's insane theory of cash for arms. Both arms manufacturers and people buying them were giving money directly to Bill Clinton. You're saying that drawing a connection between the two is implausible. That is your stated position.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
When a pro quo emerges from the Qatari World Cup's involvement with the Clinton Foundation, I might give a gently caress. Until then I'm going to assume its just the latest in the endless parade of teapot tempests that this time, surely this time, will prove that the Clintons are power-mad Caliguloids.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Shut up Walker It's as if he's not capable of understanding why a woman would ever want to end a pregnancy in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Both arms manufacturers and people buying them were giving money directly to Bill Clinton. And what is your allegation that this means for The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Both arms manufacturers and people buying them were giving money directly to Bill Clinton. Is this better or worse than Dick Cheney going from DoD -> Halliburton -> White House Serious question, it seems disingenuous to suddenly care about war profiteering when a Democrat does it
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:538 has him as "moderate," what's his deal? From two pages back but this is an excellent depiction of the GOP field, in that it is a hot loving mess. Rand Paul is the only libertarian but somehow that circle still overlaps most of the others. And what is with the candidates sitting on the edges of circles? You can't fence-sit on a Venn diagram, you're either in the circle or not. Is relative position within the circles supposed to mean something? Is Huckabee less Tea Party than Santorum? Graaah 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:I'm looking at the list of Clinton Foundation contributors on Wikipedia and just trembling at the thought of the terrible favors the Clintons must owe the founder of Slim Fast. People get hung up on Saudi Arabia, but Norway is a worryingly large donor. Does this mean that, under a Clinton presidency, unsuspecting Americans will have the Nordic welfare model thrust upon them? Or does it mean we'll be selling Norway tanks, because god knows we have too many of the drat things ourselves? I forget how this whole quid pro quo deal works.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Both arms manufacturers and people buying them were giving money directly to Bill Clinton. Prove that the State Department under Hillary's term ignored weapons proliferation laws in the deals with parties that donated to the Clinton Foundation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean poo poo nobody * likes * Hillary. But none of this appears disqualifyingly illegal, and that's all that matters or that anyone cares about now. Because Clinton being shady is old news. What the hell is this? I like Hillary fine. I want a democratic nominee that's going to A. support liberal positions B. defend whats left of the social welfare state and supreme court against a republican congress and C. Win Guess what? C is the most important of all of those. I find it crazy that the biggest knock against Hillary is that she is a GOOD politician. She has consistently been liberal throughout her career. The fact that she's spending time talking to (*gasp*) pre-selected audiences in early primary states instead of making speeches railing against the 1% is a good thing. Unlike apparently half of this forum, I don't believe there's a silent majority of socialists/leftists just waiting for the messiah to propel into the presidency. I think that advocating for fair social and economic reform is HARD, especially in a conservative country with a governmental system designed to resist change. There is no advantage to being ideologically pure and out of power, especially to those who need it. We've been losing our strength in Congress for decades. Democrats are at a low point, and it'll be a long time in the wilderness before we can start restoring a lead in state or federal legislative bodies and protecting the people who need it the most protection. Incremental change, change that is bought and sold by lobbyists and bankers, change that barely qualifies as progressive is still something. An example: is the ACA a shining point of progressive legislation? No, it's a republican free-market healthcare plan. But it dramatically lowered the rate of uninsurance, especially for minorities, and provided protection against price-gouging for those with pre-existing conditions. A single-payer plan would have been better and was impossible by the time Coakley lost Kennedy's seat and hosed up the entire plan. I'm way more interested in preserving those gains than making some point about the economic system or tossing red meat to the base. TL,DR: gently caress Bernie Sanders. the shadow toker fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So you're assuming he was gay because he had long hair too? In the same WP article: quote:The boy few at Cranbrook knew or remember was born in Chicago, grew up in South Bend, Ind., and had a hard time fitting in. He liked to wander and “had a glorious sense of the absurd,” according to his sister Betsy. When the chance to get out of Indiana presented itself, he jumped at it and enrolled at Cranbrook. He never uttered a word about Mitt Romney or the haircut incident to his sisters. After Cranbrook asked him to leave, he finished high school, attended the University of the Seven Seas for two semesters, then graduated in 1970 from Vanderbilt, where he majored in English. Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Prove that the State Department under Hillary's term ignored weapons proliferation laws in the deals with parties that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Also, please show that there was significant opposition to the weapons sales either within the administration or the state department. Seriously, what's the point of spending millions of dollars on something you're going to get for free regardless.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And what is your allegation that this means for The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary? So here's the thing. This doesn't need to be airtight. We don't need (or really want) Clinton to go down in flames before the primary. No one is trying to get a_liberal_poster_00 to switch their vote to Rubio. It means people on the left are defending the practice, which undermines the Democratic party itself. It means people are defending the scummy status quo who are supposed to represent the party of economic, social, and political change. I want Independents to see this. I hope nominal Dems who only voted twice (in 08 and 12) see this. Based on the last few pages it's all going swimmingly.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Prove that the State Department under Hillary's term ignored weapons proliferation laws in the deals with parties that donated to the Clinton Foundation. You said "implausible".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So here's the thing. So you admit there is no wrongdoing involving The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary, good. You can't even come up with a theory as to how anything bad happened!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you admit there is no wrongdoing involving The Clinton Machine Bill And Hillary, good. The theory is that it's HILLARY CLINTON
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:You said "implausible". No I said Sheng's post was plausible because giving money to curry favors later on is literally lobbying 101. Giving money to get weapons you were going to get anyway is stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I was too young to really follow politics in the 90s, is this what we have to look forward to for the next nine years? Endless insinuation and half-baked "follow the money" conspiracies? A few pages behind so someone already answered this, but yes. Regardless of how you feel about the Clintons, they have a near unmatched record for being the eye of bilious scandal. So I hope you enjoy threadbare murder rumors cuz you're gonna see a lot of them.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Yeah, I'm sure the Qatari World Cup committee is very interested in the plight of Haitians and was expecting nothing in return from the Clintons for donating millions of dollars to their foundation. "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." - Justice Kennedy, Citizens United
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
"These people of privilege who live by their own rules never did nothing demonstrably illegal, therefore any criticism must be politically motivated."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." - Justice Kennedy, Citizens United You don't know what an independent expenditure is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:"These people of privilege who live by their own rules never did nothing demonstrably illegal, therefore any criticism must be politically motivated." You couldn't even come up with an actual accusation to start with bro, next time try that?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:"These people of privilege who live by their own rules never did nothing demonstrably illegal, therefore any criticism must be politically motivated." I know the old issues of American Spectator you have say otherwise but the Clintons are nothing if not experts at following the exact letter of the law.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So here's the thing. Look at this puppetmasta. 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:33 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:"These people of privilege who live by their own rules never did nothing demonstrably illegal, therefore any criticism must be politically motivated." Man, it's almost like if you spend 20+ years screaming about a political couples' supposed scandals and corruption which ultimately never seems to pan out to more than any other career politician, and often much less than even that, people start to look askance at the latest dreadful thing you're going on about. But keep it up buddy; I'm sure this is the one that'll finally sink those mean ol' Clintons, now go to sleep. Yes, I'll check to make sure George Stephanopoulos isn't under your bed. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 22:27 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 22:15
|
|