icantfindaname posted:

There was a very real and large conflict of interest in the donations. that doesn't mean she was acting on corruption, but conflicts of interest should be avoided in the first place, and the fact that she let it exist is a legitimate criticism, unlike speculation that Obama is a Muslim. The AP story was not misleading outside the normal bounds of journalism. Freaking the gently caress out about this and shouting down anyone who points it out is a hilarious way to respond to this and is not going to help Hillary in the least

Eschers Basement posted:

The ones freaking out are actually the ones who six months ago insisted that Clinton would wreck it all, and desperately want to be vindicated.

Periodiko posted:

I don't agree that having someone donate to your family's powerful personal charity isn't a form of personal gain. I feel like if they weren't the Clintons, and they weren't already elite-squared, the level of access, power and influence represented by the Clinton Foundation would be unquestionable. I'm somewhat devil's advocating here, I don't feel that outraged, but I do think it's a perfectly reasonable argument. It feels like there's a strange standard here, where 10K in a duffle bag is clearly personal gain, but millions from awful human-rights violators, clearly intended as a way of gaining influence, to a charitable foundation that has you rubbing shoulders with the world's elites is worth barely a shrug.

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

This is akin to being the best venereal disease.


This may make her more likable from a politics nerd standpoint, but it's a really bad trait for a candidate to have since it (even moreso) invites the kind of lovely reporting we've seen this cycle.

quote:

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the power to force the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative to publicly disclose the names of foreign governments and the millions they donate each year to the charities but he’s not doing it, a Scripps News investigation has found.

Schneiderman’s failure to require compliance with New York law and written instructions from his own office keeps the public in the dark about whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, experts in private foundation law say. New York state has long required more transparency from non-profits operating within its borders than many other regulators.

A Scripps Washington Bureau review of tax returns and regulatory filings found that year after year the Clinton charities have ignored New York law and related instructions. However, the office of Attorney General Schneiderman, a Democrat whom Hillary Clinton named to her campaign's “leadership council” in New York, did not respond to Scripps’ questions about the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which has never publicly disclosed in New York filings the identity of its foreign government contributors or the amounts they give each year. Scripps also discovered CHAI did not report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign government donations to the state.

However, Schneiderman’s office said it considers the Clinton Foundation, which is a separate charity, “in step” with state rules.

“He’s not doing his job in that case,” said David Nelson, an attorney and former partner at the accounting firm of Ernst & Young who served on the regulations and legislation committee of the Council On Foundations, the philanthropy industry’s equivalent of the American Bar Association.

In 2009, Secretary Clinton’s first year heading the State Department, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York only a lump sum of $122 million in foreign government donations, listing the amount on a required form that directs all charities to “list each government contribution (grant) separately.” The foundation continued to provide the lump sum disclosures for foreign governments in every year that followed.

Nelson said, “The Clinton Foundation cannot say they are in compliance with New York regulations.”

Here’s what you need to know

The Internal Revenue Service has long required charities to disclose on their federal tax returns the total amount of contributions they receive from all governments, foreign and domestic. The federal form does not require a charity to publicly identify its government contributors. However, any charity that wishes to operate or raise funds in New York must also, according to a state law, meet more rigid transparency requirements and publicly disclose “the name of each agency” and “the amount of each contribution” received from any government agency, every year.

A partial review by Scripps of charities registered in New York found inconsistent compliance with the instructions.

The New York Attorney General’s office published a set of detailed instructions for all charities to follow. It directs them to make sure the total amount of government contributions disclosed to the state is equal to what the charities report to the IRS. From 2010-2014, for every year it has filed disclosures with the state, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has ignored this direction.

.....

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

This may make her more likable from a politics nerd standpoint, but it's a really bad trait for a candidate to have since it (even moreso) invites the kind of lovely reporting we've seen this cycle.

Epic High Five posted:

Newflash: that lovely reporting has been the standard for almost 2 decades

quote:

Also then they're all venereal diseases so you may as well pick the best one. Want something better? Show up in 2018, and for local poo poo

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

In which the Clinton Foundation ignored state laws because why not:


More in the link but the tldr is the Clinton Foundation is required by New York state law to fully disclose each government/agency and its donation amount. Both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative chose not to do this, keeping $225 million secret (as in, withholding specifics of the individual contributions that totaled that amount) from New York.

CHAI spokesperson blames the NY AG, a man appointed to Clinton's Leadership Council, because they would totally fully disclose if the AG asked them too (even though it's New York law), Clinton Foundation people say it's no biggie because everyone else does it, and the NY AG people kick the can by saying they are going to clarify things soon.

I know, blah blah blah Clinton Foundation, but get ready for it to be in the news cycle. Ignoring everything else involving the foundation, purposely ignoring state law is a bad thing to do.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

reminder that one of the sparks for Clinton's bad relationship with the press was when they lost their poo poo when she said she wasn't a 'stay at home and bake cookies' type and demanded she bake cookies.

Epic High Five posted:

Then she did and won a contest because they were so good, then never did again

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Real Talk, Bernie would be getting destroyed by a blitz of negative media attention that he would have absolutely no experience in dealing with. Hillary has lived this for 25 years.

iospace posted:

Though she's warmed up to the press a bit, and is willing to answer questions on the plane on the way to stops. This should take some of the heat off her, hopefully.

Going back to favorability polling: an indicator of who's going to win will be Obama's approval numbers heading into November. A significant amount of the electorate view her as Obama's third term, so if things are looking up for him, it'll give her an edge.

Ciaphas posted:

Fear I might be asking a loaded question, but with the mainstream press hate-on going forth here where do you all get your news, generally?

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

In which the Clinton Foundation ignored state laws because why not:


More in the link but the tldr is the Clinton Foundation is required by New York state law to fully disclose each government/agency and its donation amount. Both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative chose not to do this, keeping $225 million secret (as in, withholding specifics of the individual contributions that totaled that amount) from New York.

CHAI spokesperson blames the NY AG, a man appointed to Clinton's Leadership Council, because they would totally fully disclose if the AG asked them too (even though it's New York law), Clinton Foundation people say it's no biggie because everyone else does it, and the NY AG people kick the can by saying they are going to clarify things soon.

I know, blah blah blah Clinton Foundation, but get ready for it to be in the news cycle. Ignoring everything else involving the foundation, purposely ignoring state law is a bad thing to do.

quote:

However, Schneiderman’s office said it considers the Clinton Foundation, which is a separate charity, “in step” with state rules.

DemeaninDemon posted:

Hillary thrives on negative attention. Her Grand Abuela powers grow with every poo poo non-scandal that hits some poo poo stained rag passed as news.

Trabisnikof posted:

Funny you seem to gloss over this part

Trabisnikof posted:

Funny you seem to gloss over this part

Trabisnikof posted:

Funny you seem to gloss over this part

quote:

"It's hard to explain why -- despite their own calls for funding -- Senate Democrats decided to block a bill that could help keep pregnant women and babies safer from Zika," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor.
[...]
Democrats blocked the bill because they say it included a provision to prevent funding for Planned Parenthood and no longer included a provision in the House bill banning Confederate flags from veterans' cemeteries.

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

You misunderstand. Being a poor candidate does not mean you're a poor human being or would make a poor president. It means that, as a candidate, you have glaring weaknesses.

I don't dislike Clinton, really, I just think she's not a good candidate given the country we live in.

e: it's why I think this race will be closer than it has any right to be, even given polarization in this country.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Name one "glaring weakness" Hillary has that isn't "optics" or "I haven't taken stock of all the Republican propaganda I've absorbed over the past twenty years."

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

Her foreign policy

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

Her foreign policy

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

This is dumb. She's consistently polling ahead at a wide margin, and she's almost certainly going to win. Those are the marks of a good candidate. The votes she's losing are the votes of people choosing to support a bigot instead. What is it you'd have her change about herself to win those people over? Should she be more hateful herself? Less progressive? More male?

American races are close. They literally always are. That's just how our system is structured. This race is notably less close than usual, and that's a good thing.

Name one "glaring weakness" Hillary has that isn't "optics" or "I haven't taken stock of all the Republican propaganda I've absorbed over the past twenty years."

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

She and her husband unfortunately give off an incredibly ungenuine, prototypical politician vibe that while being unreflective of them as actual human persons turns a lot of people off. Her cool relationship with the press makes them even more willing to dig up any poo poo story they can find to bludgeon her with. She, unfortunately, has been tarred with scandal for years and years despite it being bullshit. She's not super personable or charming as a speaker or public figure, either.

She's not a good candidate. For a counterexample Obama (despite being the bane of racists everywhere) projected and projects a much more genuine and "wholesome" image that makes getting real traction with any scandal nigh impossible. He, rightly or wrongly, has been presented to the country as much less duplicitous and conniving. Despite being a relative unknown, he was a good candidate.

And no, she is not ahead at a wide margin. She, according to most aggregates, is barely running ahead of the MoE. She's looking good in swing states so far, but has been slipping now that the media turned it's attention on her. And by all rights, she should be crushing Trump but she's not.

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

She and her husband unfortunately give off an incredibly ungenuine, prototypical politician vibe that while being unreflective of them as actual human persons turns a lot of people off. Her cool relationship with the press makes them even more willing to dig up any poo poo story they can find to bludgeon her with. She, unfortunately, has been tarred with scandal for years and years despite it being bullshit. She's not super personable or charming as a speaker or public figure, either.

She's not a good candidate. For a counterexample Obama (despite being the bane of racists everywhere) projected and projects a much more genuine and "wholesome" image that makes getting real traction with any scandal nigh impossible. He, rightly or wrongly, has been presented to the country as much less duplicitous and conniving. Despite being a relative unknown, he was a good candidate.

And no, she is not ahead at a wide margin. She, according to most aggregates, is barely running ahead of the MoE. She's looking good in swing states so far, but has been slipping now that the media turned it's attention on her. And by all rights, she should be crushing Trump but she's not.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

In which the Clinton Foundation ignored state laws because why not:


More in the link but the tldr is the Clinton Foundation is required by New York state law to fully disclose each government/agency and its donation amount. Both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative chose not to do this, keeping $225 million secret (as in, withholding specifics of the individual contributions that totaled that amount) from New York.

CHAI spokesperson blames the NY AG, a man appointed to Clinton's Leadership Council, because they would totally fully disclose if the AG asked them too (even though it's New York law), Clinton Foundation people say it's no biggie because everyone else does it, and the NY AG people kick the can by saying they are going to clarify things soon.

I know, blah blah blah Clinton Foundation, but get ready for it to be in the news cycle. Ignoring everything else involving the foundation, purposely ignoring state law is a bad thing to do.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

This is real dumb.

Good Citizen posted:

Um, Bill was probably one of the best politicians ever at seeming genuine when connecting with people on the campaign trail. That was like his whole thing.

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

Thanks, glad to have your opinion.

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

"I haven't taken stock of all the Republican propaganda I've absorbed over the past twenty years."

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

You posted a real dumb opinion with only the slightest connection to facts based on your personal perception of her as a "bad candidate" that boils down to "she's not Obama, therefore..."

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Eugene V. Dabs posted:

I posted things which would be common knowledge if you looked at the crosstabs of any poll or paid attention to how she is covered at all in the mainstream, you glorious idiot.

Unless you're saying seeming dishonest/untrustworthy, being scandal-ridden, whatever the gently caress else are good traits to have as a candidate. It's okay to admit Hillary has obvious flaws, it doesn't mean her entire campaign is going to collapse like a deck of cards.