|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Mcmullin Real american hero?
Somehow Hillary collapses in the final strech and fails to get 270 electoral votes, trump doing the same without Utah.
lack of 270 Electoral votes means the top 3 presidential canidates names get sent to the house and the top two vice presidents go to the sentate. There are enough republican canidates that will refuse to vote for trump and there isn't enough democrats to vote for hillary for a majority and a win, the vote then goes to the senate where pence wins automatically.
So the only way for the democrats to prevent republican presidency for the next four years is to make a deal with mcmullin.
Mcmullin saves the nation.
Also aparently Jill stein has the same poll numbers in texas as Harambe. I find this hilarious and fun.
|
|
|
United States43803 Posts
On October 20 2016 07:05 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 07:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:48 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, it's not. That's what makes this whole theory so strange. The idea that they donated $10m that they didn't have to in order to get an apartment that they would have gotten anyway as a way of saving money is really strange. Think of it this way: I have to eat tonight. Tonight we're going out to eat together. I gave you $10 a while ago, not really expecting you to pay me back. My dinner tonight cost $15. You pick up the entire bill. How much do you expect me to pay you back? Not a perfect analogy I guess, but do you get the idea? Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly. Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment? For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way. Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget. Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise. The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be. I know I didn't say that he was aiming for both the library and the apartment until now, but I was getting around to it. I mean shit, don't you want a badass library right outside your place? If you offered me a $125m library/apartment combo and told me you could make it even better if I gave you $10m I'd say that it was probably already pretty good and that I'd keep the $10m. Even if I had to pay taxes on the $10m. Even if giving away the $10m would be tax free. Even if you already had <insert Mr. Clinton's net worth here>?
You know you're agreeing with me that it was a charitable donation intended for the betterment of the library at the expense of the finances of the Clintons now, right?
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 07:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 07:05 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 07:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:48 Barrin wrote:
[quote]
Think of it this way:
I have to eat tonight. Tonight we're going out to eat together. I gave you $10 a while ago, not really expecting you to pay me back. My dinner tonight cost $15. You pick up the entire bill. How much do you expect me to pay you back?
Not a perfect analogy I guess, but do you get the idea? Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly. Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment? For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way. Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget. Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise. The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be. I know I didn't say that he was aiming for both the library and the apartment until now, but I was getting around to it. I mean shit, don't you want a badass library right outside your place? If you offered me a $125m library/apartment combo and told me you could make it even better if I gave you $10m I'd say that it was probably already pretty good and that I'd keep the $10m. Even if I had to pay taxes on the $10m. Even if giving away the $10m would be tax free. Even if you already had <insert Mr. Clinton's net worth here>? You know you're agreeing with me that it was a charitable donation intended for the betterment of the library at the expense of the finances of the Clintons now, right?
Its also possible that Bill was trying to be corrupt and was shitty at it.
|
On October 20 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 07:07 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:05 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 07:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly.
Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment?
For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way. Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget. Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise. The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be. I know I didn't say that he was aiming for both the library and the apartment until now, but I was getting around to it. I mean shit, don't you want a badass library right outside your place? If you offered me a $125m library/apartment combo and told me you could make it even better if I gave you $10m I'd say that it was probably already pretty good and that I'd keep the $10m. Even if I had to pay taxes on the $10m. Even if giving away the $10m would be tax free. Even if you already had <insert Mr. Clinton's net worth here>? You know you're agreeing with me that it was a charitable donation intended for the betterment of the library at the expense of the finances of the Clintons now, right? Its also possible that Bill was trying to be corrupt and was shitty at it.
I don't think Bill Clinton got where he was by being shitty at being corrupt. Either he's corrupt and fairly good at hiding it or he's not corrupt, but you don't spend 8 years in the Oval Office after years of governship while being bad at being corrupt and only have a possible apartment over a library that isn't even evidence of corruption to show for it.
|
On October 20 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 07:07 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:05 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 07:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly.
Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment?
For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way. Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget. Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise. The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be. I know I didn't say that he was aiming for both the library and the apartment until now, but I was getting around to it. I mean shit, don't you want a badass library right outside your place? If you offered me a $125m library/apartment combo and told me you could make it even better if I gave you $10m I'd say that it was probably already pretty good and that I'd keep the $10m. Even if I had to pay taxes on the $10m. Even if giving away the $10m would be tax free. Even if you already had <insert Mr. Clinton's net worth here>? You know you're agreeing with me that it was a charitable donation intended for the betterment of the library at the expense of the finances of the Clintons now, right? Its also possible that Bill was trying to be corrupt and was shitty at it.
How likely is that considering the overwhelming lack of evidence against the Clinton's?
If they are this super corrupt organization they clearly know what they are doing and wouldn't screw this up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 07:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 07:07 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:05 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 07:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 07:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:
[quote]
Easy.
1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway.
2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way. Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget. Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise. The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be. I know I didn't say that he was aiming for both the library and the apartment until now, but I was getting around to it. I mean shit, don't you want a badass library right outside your place? If you offered me a $125m library/apartment combo and told me you could make it even better if I gave you $10m I'd say that it was probably already pretty good and that I'd keep the $10m. Even if I had to pay taxes on the $10m. Even if giving away the $10m would be tax free. Even if you already had <insert Mr. Clinton's net worth here>? You know you're agreeing with me that it was a charitable donation intended for the betterment of the library at the expense of the finances of the Clintons now, right? Its also possible that Bill was trying to be corrupt and was shitty at it. I don't think Bill Clinton got where he was by being shitty at being corrupt. Either he's corrupt and fairly good at hiding it or he's not corrupt, but you don't spend 8 years in the Oval Office after years of governship while being bad at being corrupt and only have a possible apartment over a library that isn't even evidence of corruption to show for it.
I don't disagree. I have no reason to believe Bill is being corrupt through this library. But, it is possible that he is just shitty about it. Do I believe that? Hell no. But its technically possible.
|
+ Show Spoiler +"I did get the Nobel Peace Prize"
"Oh really what was that for?"
"To be honest I still don't know"
ahahah
|
On October 20 2016 08:17 Blisse wrote:+ Show Spoiler +"I did get the Nobel Peace Prize"
"Oh really what was that for?"
"To be honest I still don't know" ahahah
Based on the timing, I think he received it based on his campaign run in the year before.
|
On October 20 2016 08:34 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 08:17 Blisse wrote:+ Show Spoiler +"I did get the Nobel Peace Prize"
"Oh really what was that for?"
"To be honest I still don't know" ahahah Based on the timing, I think he received it based on his campaign run in the year before.
"Yes we can" was pure genius in that video.
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/missing-from-hacked-emails-clinton-herself-1476662725?mod=e2fb
I am surprised none of us picked this up.
One person conspicuously absent so far in the thousands of hacked emails showing the internal workings of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is Hillary Clinton herself.
Time and again, it is Mrs. Clinton’s top aides who in a round robin of emails debate and shape major campaign speeches and strategy. When Mrs. Clinton is heard from, it typically is second hand: through an email sent by a confidante to other aides.
In the few missives that have emerged directly from Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee usually makes arrangements for issues to be discussed in meetings and phone calls—and that is when she will make the final call on how to proceed.
It is a process that seems to be working. She beat back a strong primary challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and, with less than a month before Election Day, she consistently leads Republican rival Donald Trump in national polls and most swing-state surveys.
Another effect, though, is that there is little, if any, written record of Mrs. Clinton’s directives or her decision-making process during this campaign. Future releases of the stolen emails could show more, but the practice may not be accidental.
Mrs. Clinton was preparing to launch her campaign last year when news broke that she had used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
While that controversy swirled and Republicans combed through Mrs. Clinton’s State Department emails, many campaign decisions apparently were being made without leaving much of an electronic paper trail, the emails released so far suggest.
It is sort of weird that all the emails that are dumped, almost none of them are from her.
|
|
|
|
|
Just saw MSNBC advertise the debate as 'the final showdown' and then had cuts of them back and forth bashing the other. Amused/annoyed that they have turned it into some hyped up sports event or something. Think that says something about the current state of our politics.
|
On October 20 2016 08:47 Plansix wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/missing-from-hacked-emails-clinton-herself-1476662725?mod=e2fbI am surprised none of us picked this up. Show nested quote +One person conspicuously absent so far in the thousands of hacked emails showing the internal workings of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is Hillary Clinton herself.
Time and again, it is Mrs. Clinton’s top aides who in a round robin of emails debate and shape major campaign speeches and strategy. When Mrs. Clinton is heard from, it typically is second hand: through an email sent by a confidante to other aides.
In the few missives that have emerged directly from Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee usually makes arrangements for issues to be discussed in meetings and phone calls—and that is when she will make the final call on how to proceed.
It is a process that seems to be working. She beat back a strong primary challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and, with less than a month before Election Day, she consistently leads Republican rival Donald Trump in national polls and most swing-state surveys.
Another effect, though, is that there is little, if any, written record of Mrs. Clinton’s directives or her decision-making process during this campaign. Future releases of the stolen emails could show more, but the practice may not be accidental.
Mrs. Clinton was preparing to launch her campaign last year when news broke that she had used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
While that controversy swirled and Republicans combed through Mrs. Clinton’s State Department emails, many campaign decisions apparently were being made without leaving much of an electronic paper trail, the emails released so far suggest. It is sort of weird that all the emails that are dumped, almost none of them are from her.
Sounds like someone who prefers to avoid leaving a paper trail. I'd do the same.
|
Prominent environmental group Friends of the Earth Action is urging voters to support Hillary Clinton instead of Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
The liberal DC-based organization, which endorsed Bernie Sanders over Clinton during the Democratic primary and ran ads on his behalf, argued in an op-ed published Tuesday that Stein and her party "are not credible standard barriers for the progressive movement or Sen. Sanders' Revolution."
"In endorsing Sen. Sanders, Friends of the Earth Action was supporting someone who inspired and rallied new people to our democracy and could accomplish change as president" wrote Friends of the Earth Action president Erich Pica. "In Hillary Clinton, while we disagree with many of her positions, we see someone who will be very capable running the government. In Dr. Stein, we see someone who shares our values on important issues, but has absolutely no track record."
The group acknowledged its past criticisms of Clinton -- including her slowness to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, her onetime praise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and her "ties to fossil fuel lobbyists" -- but argued that Stein has been largely absent on important progressive fights as well.
"Where was she during the battle against the Keystone XL pipeline, the Keep It In The Ground movement, the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority battles, the fight for a $15 dollar minimum wage, same-sex marriage and all the other major progressive gains over the past several years?" Pica wrote.
"They did not take part. The Green Party is a political organization in name only, though we wish it were much more."
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
