Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[stevea]

Yeah, those sneaky Aussies, Swedes, and ...Norwegies? Nords?
Always trying to buy US influence!

Australia apparently got a ~$15B increase in arms export authorization, and gave the Clintons $10M.

Poor Norway only got a $650M increase for a $10M contribution.

Saudis got an increase of ~$4B in arms exports after a $10M donation.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Then there are the contributions from the defense industry making all this war-gear.

It's a good thing that Trump has no businesses in Saudi Arabia, nor does Fox news have ties to SA...

Those are investments - perfectly lawful, and Fox has no ability to prevent anyone from not investing in their publicly traded stock, and your Trump link is full equivocations. No one cares if he invests in a company that may or may not have some interest in a possible hotel build in SA.

The issue is conflict of interest - like taking money from a nation or business while also having decisions about their interests before the state department.

--
Crony capitalism (a form of non-criminal corruption within government) is a substantial problem in the US government, and Hillary's very dubious actions, and dancing on the edge of legality suggests it would get worse under HC.

The server/email mess suggest either gross incompetence or criminality - either way not a winning feature in a President.


The two-party system has produced no reasonable choice IMO.

 

[The_Animus]

"It's clear that any outside influence needs to be clearly identified in some way to at least guarantee transparency. That didn't happen," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government reform group. "These discrepancies are striking because of her possible interest at the time in running for the presidency."

Just another example of Hillary's sneering disregard for transparency. And this paranoid loon thinks she should be President...

But hey! It says she didn't break any laws, and because "Not Being an Indicted Felon" is the bar we have set for our Candidates everything is coming up Hillary!

I believe the term is Hillegal. Where it's blatantly morally/ethically wrong but not technically illegal or at least a gray enough area that nothing happens because of your political standing

In any case:

-Won't release transcripts of speeches
-Hasn't had a press conference in over 200 days
-Deletes work related e-mails but claims to have turned over all of them
-Hides who she is meeting with
-Scripted questions at campaign events
-Quid pro quo with journalists - access for favorable coverage

But it's all okay because a Clinton spokesperson said that Clinton

has always made an effort to be transparent since entering public life, whether it be the release of over 30 years of tax returns, years of financial disclosure forms, or asking that 55,000 pages of work emails from her time of secretary of state be turned over to the public."

Hillarious!

Discussion board politics for many is just a fantasy sport. My team vs. theirs, and my team can lie to win, no problem.

Hillary supporters know what a crook she is. They do not believe their own lies and sophistry. It is a smirk to have the enemy thinking we believe our own garbage.

Stalin was never convicted of anything so nya nya nya. Boy, the level of logical prowess on a skeptic board. Wow, something to be admired.

You claim to be skeptical but right here the evidence is you're mostly just a liar. Lying about what you believe to be true, and for the reason of scoring "points" against the fantasy game opposition.

This election has been a real eye opener for many. If someone has been championing and defending a candidate almost every day for the last year it becomes real easy to accept anything positive and to ignore or dismiss anything negative. Further, even if you get past that and suspect that the positives might be invalid or the negatives valid, it can be really hard to admit that. No one likes admitting they were wrong or fooled. It's embarrassing. The same can be true when someone opposes and attacks a candidate almost every day for the last year.

So it's easier for most to just treat it like sports my team vs theirs.

 

[dudalb]

I've yet to see any evidence she's a crook at all. Just lots of nonsense. And I was on team Bernie.

And I think anybody who says "there is no difference between Trump and HIlary" is either a idiot or a edgy,antiestablishment type who,as the saying goes, wants to burn down the house to get rid of a couple of mice.

 

[The_Animus]

And I think anybody who says "there is no difference between Trump and HIlary"

Who is saying that? Quote it please

 

[Dog Town]

... And I was on team Bernie.

 

[SOdhner]

Hillary Clinton has absolutely lied, plenty of times. She's also relatively honest, for a major league politician. She is a liar, who has also been falsely accused of lying in many situations where she told the truth.

Her honesty or lack thereof is being treated as a major or even defining feature of her character and it's simply not. She's fine. She's honest in her speeches and other public addresses most of the time, and sometimes lies when it helps her avoid something unpleasant. In the world of politics that's nothing to be proud of but it's nothing we should lose our minds about.

I could compare her to Trump, who lies way more frequently, but that's beside the point. I'd much rather talk about the actual facts of her actions and what policies she has supported and is likely to support in the future. There again we have some false claims and some legitimate complaints, but at least it's closer to being relevant.

This obsession with whether or not she's a liar is absurd.

 

[Piscivore]

This obsession with whether or not she's a liar is absurd.

All humans lie. At least she's a competent liar; unlike Trump who does not seem to even care if what he says is factual or not--or worse, does not know there may be a difference between what things are and what he wishes them to be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Australia apparently got a ~$15B increase in arms export authorization, and gave the Clintons $10M.

Poor Norway only got a $650M increase for a $10M contribution.

Saudis got an increase of ~$4B in arms exports after a $10M donation.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Then there are the contributions from the defense industry making all this war-gear.[ship].

This all smacks of Sandersesque accusations, if there's money there must be corruption but without evidence of any quid pro quo.

Charity Navigator Removes Clinton Foundation From Watch List

Foreign Government Concerns

The Clinton Foundation was added to the list earlier this year after investigations by news organizations, including the Wall Street Journal and Politico, raised questions about whether corporations and foreign governments used donations to the charity to curry favor with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The New York-based foundation faced intense scrutiny as Mrs. Clinton readied to announce her bid for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. The foundation’s placement on the watch list was brandished by Clinton foes as evidence of mismanagement, or worse, at the eponymous charity.

From the start, the Clinton Foundation challenged being added to the list. It wrote to Charity Navigator saying that there was no proof of wrongdoing in any of the news stories.

"Our supporters donate to the Clinton Foundation because they want to see lives improved; they wanted better opportunity across the globe," the charity wrote.

Subsequently, the foundation took multiple steps to enhance transparency and avoid what it described as "even the appearance of a conflict of interest."

A neutral organization found nothing shady in the foreign country donations. Tell me, if the US gives money to an NGO involved in HIV prevention in Africa, does that suggest the US wants to curry favor from some country the NGO is operating in?

People are naive to the way the US spends tax dollars for various humanitarian causes. Governments indeed give money to NGOs doing charity work. Why wouldn't other governments do the same?

The US also gives money to NGOs with the stipulation the money must be used to purchase goods from US based corporations. That's more corrupt than this stuff with the Clinton Foundation.

 

[dudalb]

Hillary Clinton has absolutely lied, plenty of times. She's also relatively honest, for a major league politician. She is a liar, who has also been falsely accused of lying in many situations where she told the truth.

Her honesty or lack thereof is being treated as a major or even defining feature of her character and it's simply not. She's fine. She's honest in her speeches and other public addresses most of the time, and sometimes lies when it helps her avoid something unpleasant. In the world of politics that's nothing to be proud of but it's nothing we should lose our minds about.

I could compare her to Trump, who lies way more frequently, but that's beside the point. I'd much rather talk about the actual facts of her actions and what policies she has supported and is likely to support in the future. There again we have some false claims and some legitimate complaints, but at least it's closer to being relevant.

This obsession with whether or not she's a liar is absurd.

As I previously said,I would vote for a liar over a liar who is also an authoritarian,egotistical,narcissic idiot any day of the week.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Who is saying that? Quote it please

You, apparently, for starters:

Or being called a Trump supporter because you don't agree with every single criticism anyone says about him.

I think in another thread it was said that Trump could do anything, even shoot someone, and his followers would still support him. I read a comment today (not here) from a Clinton supporter who said even if a new video came out showing Clinton pointing a gun to Vince fosters head, they would still support Clinton.

The abilily to ignore a blatantly terrible candidate isn't the sole domain of Trump supporters.

Trump supports believe Trump is great and Clinton is terrible. Clinton supporters believe Clinton is great and Trump is terrible. But they're both wrong. They're both terrible.

 

[Fudbucker]

Who is saying that? Quote it please

You, apparently, for starters:

Or being called a Trump supporter because you don't agree with every single criticism anyone says about him.

I think in another thread it was said that Trump could do anything, even shoot someone, and his followers would still support him. I read a comment today (not here) from a Clinton supporter who said even if a new video came out showing Clinton pointing a gun to Vince fosters head, they would still support Clinton.

The abilily to ignore a blatantly terrible candidate isn't the sole domain of Trump supporters.

Trump supports believe Trump is great and Clinton is terrible. Clinton supporters believe Clinton is great and Trump is terrible. But they're both wrong. They're both terrible.

That doesn't prove what you think it proves. Two things can be terrible and still be quite different. AIDS is terrible. Herpes is terrible. I'd rather get one than the other.

 

[sunmaster14]

Hillary Clinton has absolutely lied, plenty of times. She's also relatively honest, for a major league politician. She is a liar, who has also been falsely accused of lying in many situations where she told the truth.

Her honesty or lack thereof is being treated as a major or even defining feature of her character and it's simply not. She's fine. She's honest in her speeches and other public addresses most of the time, and sometimes lies when it helps her avoid something unpleasant. In the world of politics that's nothing to be proud of but it's nothing we should lose our minds about.

I could compare her to Trump, who lies way more frequently, but that's beside the point. I'd much rather talk about the actual facts of her actions and what policies she has supported and is likely to support in the future. There again we have some false claims and some legitimate complaints, but at least it's closer to being relevant.

This obsession with whether or not she's a liar is absurd.

No, she's not a typical liar, even for a high-stakes politician. She is a reflexive liar, but a strategic one. She has a quiver filled with finely crafted lies, and she deploys them whenever she feels even the slightest bit threatened.

Trump is atypical as well. He's also a reflexive liar, but one who has neither the patience nor the foresight to craft his lies in advance. His lies are more like stream-of-consciousness wishes. They are things he wants to be true at any given moment, purely out of rhetorical convenience. But, and this is an important distinction, he has neither the stamina nor intelligence to tell such lies consistently, if it were even possible.

For my part, I find Hillary's dishonesty to be more dangerous. When Trump is lying, it is so transparent that it fools almost nobody. Even his supporters who claim to believe him are usually expressing support for Trump himself, not really belief in his lies. He lies to save face, and then moves on. Lies that few believe have little capacity to do damage (except, in certain cases, to those ridiculously gullible who believe them).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That doesn't prove what you think it proves. Two things can be terrible and still be quite different. AIDS is terrible. Herpes is terrible. I'd rather get one than the other.

I think it's a fine example of the point dudalb was making about people who say/imply there's no difference between clinton and trump.

But no, I don't think it proves anything.

It certainly doesn't prove clinton is done

 

[Maya22]

Should we start a new Hillary Clinton thread with a different title?

 

[SOdhner]

No, she's not a typical liar, even for a high-stakes politician. She is a reflexive liar, but a strategic one. She has a quiver filled with finely crafted lies, and she deploys them whenever she feels even the slightest bit threatened.

I've seen a lot of accusations of that, and not a lot in the way of evidence. Look at her record on PolitiFact, for example.

Trump is atypical as well. He's also a reflexive liar, but one who has neither the patience nor the foresight to craft his lies in advance. His lies are more like stream-of-consciousness wishes. They are things he wants to be true at any given moment, purely out of rhetorical convenience. But, and this is an important distinction, he has neither the stamina nor intelligence to tell such lies consistently, if it were even possible.

Actually there are a lot of lies he's very consistent with - I find that frustrating, because he continues to tell them even after being confronted with refutations and that drives me nuts.

For my part, I find Hillary's dishonesty to be more dangerous. When Trump is lying, it is so transparent that it fools almost nobody. Even his supporters who claim to believe him are usually expressing support for Trump himself, not really belief in his lies. He lies to save face, and then moves on. Lies that few believe have little capacity to do damage (except, in certain cases, to those ridiculously gullible who believe them).

I think of it more in terms of "who do I want representing my country in foreign affairs, matters of national security, etc.?" and in that sense we have one person that, like all politicians, lies sometimes - but also is intelligent and can string a coherent thought together, and who thinks ahead and can plan for the future of the country (while also thinking about her own best interests in the long term). Then we have Trump, who might just insult whoever he's talking to (intentionally or not) and then make up some absurd justifications for it while focusing only on how to profit in the short term. The latter is much worse as a president.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, she's not a typical liar, even for a high-stakes politician. She is a reflexive liar, but a strategic one. She has a quiver filled with finely crafted lies, and she deploys them whenever she feels even the slightest bit threatened.
....

Care to give us an example of a politician that is lie free? Surely none of your right wingers.

Or, care to tell us why Clinton gets constantly called a liar when none of the 100% of the other liars are constantly called a liar?

 

[The_Animus]

You, apparently, for starters:

Nope

That doesn't prove what you think it proves. Two things can be terrible and still be quite different. AIDS is terrible. Herpes is terrible. I'd rather get one than the other.

Yep.

Clinton is a corrupt liar. Trump is a childish buffoon. They are both terrible in different ways, though overall Clinton is less terrible than Trump. That doesn't mean I have to vote for either of them.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nope



Yep.

Clinton is a corrupt liar. Trump is a childish buffoon. They are both terrible in different ways, though overall Clinton is less terrible than Trump. That doesn't mean I have to vote for either of them.

Nobody has ever been able to prove corruption on Hillary's part. A liar, sure, but in the words of Dr. House, everybody is a liar. And Hillary lies way less often than Trump. Actually, I see no evidence that she lies significantly more than the average politician (or person for that matter)

And no, you don't have to vote for Hillary. You're free to make whatever extremely foolish decisions you want to. But if you throw your vote away on some third party that has no chance whatsoever of winning, I hope you find President Donald Trump an acceptable outcome.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Clinton’s Official Calendar Riddled With Missing Meeting Entries and Name Omissions

The official calendar kept by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State had about 75 missing meeting entries — coincidently, the missing entries just happened to involve meetings with political donors, and Clinton Foundation donors.

The Associated Press fought for two years through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for access to more records. The AP reports they conducted a review by comparing the official 1,500 page calendar with a separate group of planning schedules provided to Clinton by her aides each day prior to the day’s events. The review revealed her official calendar was missing the “names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton.”

The AP notes they believe these omissions raise even more questions about Clinton’s record keeping habits and handling of government information. This is especially true in light of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation into her use of a private email server.

Read more:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/rep...h-missing-meeting-entries-and-name-omissions/ (June 24, 2016)

In addition to the 30,000 deleted emails, we now have evidence of "name omissions" from Crooked Hillary's official calendar she kept as Secretary of State.

Conclusion: obstruction of justice.

And when Crooked Hillary is deposed under oath by the FBI -- which is looking more and more likely -- will she add perjury to her growing list of crimes?

 

[jhunter1163]

In addition to the 30,000 deleted emails, we now have evidence of "name omissions" from Crooked Hillary's official calendar she kept as Secretary of State.

Conclusion: obstruction of justice.

And when Crooked Hillary is deposed under oath by the FBI -- which is looking more and more likely -- will she add perjury to her growing list of crimes?

Since when is meeting with the Secretary of State a crime?