|
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. |
On November 06 2016 04:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:34 hunts wrote:On November 06 2016 04:27 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:36 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:05 hunts wrote:Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush. ![[image loading]](http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/10.15.15_0.jpg?itok=diS1IQOY) oBlade was trying to produce false information by sharing a graph where the last unit of measure was 2000-2010 and using that trend to suggest that debt was too high in 2016. My ass, what kind of casuistry is this? My graph stops at 2010 to hide that the national debt disappeared since then? I explicitly linked usdebtclock.org which shows the national debt now at nearly $20 trillion. This is higher than before. That means it has gone up (by trillions), which is assuredly the opposite of down. You're looking at a graph of the deficit showing there's no surplus and not putting together that that means increasing debt? Since English doesn't seem to be your first language, I will understand why you don't understand mathematics. This is too funny for me not to keep you in the dark as to why. On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The US has a total debt.
Each year, that total debt can either increase, or decrease, depending on expenditures.
During George Bush's time, the debt was increasing by 7%-9% per year spiking to 11%-18% during the recession (this is when the bailouts were happening)
As banks, and factories were being saved/allowed to fail expenditures were getting cut, as could be seen by the decrease in yearly debt increase. Sure, 18% was added to the debt in 2008, but only 13% was added by 2010, and only 9% in 2011 as companies kept getting bailed out. (This is where your graph stops, which you have to make it stop here otherwise people would see your malicious deception)
There is total debt accumulated, and there is amount added to the debt. Eisenhower and Truman were able to shrink the debt by less than 2% but otherwise every president has been adding to the national debt since the founding of the United States. This means that majority of the debt is actually the work of past administration, and not current ones. So what's the best way to track who's responsible for what? You track the yearly increase or decrease in debt--as that is the money you've added to or removed from the national debt, the rest were added by previous administrations. So let us look at that.
In 2012, at the end of Obama's term, the debt was only increased by 8%, which is at the same rate as Bush had been doing it before the recession when everyone thought the US Economy was invincible. The yearly increase in debt has been shrinking even more since then with only 4% added in 2013, 6% added in 2014, and a mere 1.8% added in 2015.
So though the total debt is high, actions to shrink down our expenditure has been miles ahead of the Bush administration and much closer to the Clinton Administration's expenditures--the highest surplus in US history.
For context, bailing out the banks affected the national debt much less than almost any given year in the Reagan Administration where he added as much as 20% to the debt. The conversation before you butted in was RealityIsKing said the debt doubled, hunts said it decreased. All I did was expose reality I am not having the argument about whether Obama did better or worse than he should have, I was clarifying what reality is. The graph is not misleading, it's just the first I saw that explained the difference between up and down. You did no such thing, you showed a graph that only took 2 years of obama's presidency into account, I then showed 2 graphs that proved you and the other guy wrong, and you ignored it and kept arguing that somehow your graph which cuts off 6 important years is somehow relevant. I haven't been following your argument closely, hunts, are you currently claiming that the debt decreased during the obama years?
Right now the debt is less than it was when he came into office, yes.
|
On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:From the NY Times Editorial Board: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation.
Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton. But no one knows better than Mrs. Clinton that this is the tooth-and-claw political season where accusations are going to fly for the next 19 months. And no one should know better than the former senator and first lady that they will fester if straightforward answers are not offered to the public.
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign — the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.
The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clintons is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.
It’s an axiom in politics that money always creates important friendships, influence and special consideration. Wise politicians recognize this danger and work to keep it at bay. When she announced her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the foundation board (Bill Clinton remains on the board). This was followed by the announcement of tighter foundation restrictions on donations from foreign countries, which had resumed after she left the State Department.
These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away. Source.I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: Show nested quote +RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed?
Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead?
|
On November 06 2016 04:34 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:27 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:36 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:05 hunts wrote:Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush. oBlade was trying to produce false information by sharing a graph where the last unit of measure was 2000-2010 and using that trend to suggest that debt was too high in 2016. My ass, what kind of casuistry is this? My graph stops at 2010 to hide that the national debt disappeared since then? I explicitly linked usdebtclock.org which shows the national debt now at nearly $20 trillion. This is higher than before. That means it has gone up (by trillions), which is assuredly the opposite of down. You're looking at a graph of the deficit showing there's no surplus and not putting together that that means increasing debt? Since English doesn't seem to be your first language, I will understand why you don't understand mathematics. This is too funny for me not to keep you in the dark as to why. On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The US has a total debt.
Each year, that total debt can either increase, or decrease, depending on expenditures.
During George Bush's time, the debt was increasing by 7%-9% per year spiking to 11%-18% during the recession (this is when the bailouts were happening)
As banks, and factories were being saved/allowed to fail expenditures were getting cut, as could be seen by the decrease in yearly debt increase. Sure, 18% was added to the debt in 2008, but only 13% was added by 2010, and only 9% in 2011 as companies kept getting bailed out. (This is where your graph stops, which you have to make it stop here otherwise people would see your malicious deception)
There is total debt accumulated, and there is amount added to the debt. Eisenhower and Truman were able to shrink the debt by less than 2% but otherwise every president has been adding to the national debt since the founding of the United States. This means that majority of the debt is actually the work of past administration, and not current ones. So what's the best way to track who's responsible for what? You track the yearly increase or decrease in debt--as that is the money you've added to or removed from the national debt, the rest were added by previous administrations. So let us look at that.
In 2012, at the end of Obama's term, the debt was only increased by 8%, which is at the same rate as Bush had been doing it before the recession when everyone thought the US Economy was invincible. The yearly increase in debt has been shrinking even more since then with only 4% added in 2013, 6% added in 2014, and a mere 1.8% added in 2015.
So though the total debt is high, actions to shrink down our expenditure has been miles ahead of the Bush administration and much closer to the Clinton Administration's expenditures--the highest surplus in US history.
For context, bailing out the banks affected the national debt much less than almost any given year in the Reagan Administration where he added as much as 20% to the debt. The conversation before you butted in was RealityIsKing said the debt doubled, hunts said it decreased. All I did was expose reality I am not having the argument about whether Obama did better or worse than he should have, I was clarifying what reality is. The graph is not misleading, it's just the first I saw that explained the difference between up and down. You did no such thing, you showed a graph that only took 2 years of obama's presidency into account, I then showed 2 graphs that proved you and the other guy wrong, and you ignored it and kept arguing that somehow your graph which cuts off 6 important years is somehow relevant.
Look, RealityIsKing said "America's debt" doubled.
Your first graph was talking about "household debt." That means the average debt of households. Like what they owe to banks. It doesn't mean the US national debt divided per household. It is a wonderful fact on its own, but the national debt has been a talking point since the 80s, and when someone (like RealityIsKing) says the debt has doubled, what's most likely is they're talking about the one that's actually nearly doubled (go to http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/ and play around), not the more obscure measure of something else you looked up when you have yet to figure out the difference between the debt and the deficit (your second graph).
On November 06 2016 04:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:27 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:36 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:05 hunts wrote:Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush. oBlade was trying to produce false information by sharing a graph where the last unit of measure was 2000-2010 and using that trend to suggest that debt was too high in 2016. My ass, what kind of casuistry is this? My graph stops at 2010 to hide that the national debt disappeared since then? I explicitly linked usdebtclock.org which shows the national debt now at nearly $20 trillion. This is higher than before. That means it has gone up (by trillions), which is assuredly the opposite of down. You're looking at a graph of the deficit showing there's no surplus and not putting together that that means increasing debt? Since English doesn't seem to be your first language, I will understand why you don't understand mathematics. This is too funny for me not to keep you in the dark as to why. Please don't do this superiority shit. "Haha, I'm so right I won't even tell you why I'm right! Instead I'll just keep going on about how much smarter I am than you!" xDaunt has been better about it lately, please don't pick up his slack.
I didn't say I was right or smart, I can be wrong and dumb but still enjoy when someone mistakenly trolls about my first language while thinking math is a subset of English.
|
On November 06 2016 04:44 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:42 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 04:34 hunts wrote:On November 06 2016 04:27 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:36 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 03:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 06 2016 03:05 hunts wrote:Actually both national deficit and household debt are lower than they were under Bush. oBlade was trying to produce false information by sharing a graph where the last unit of measure was 2000-2010 and using that trend to suggest that debt was too high in 2016. My ass, what kind of casuistry is this? My graph stops at 2010 to hide that the national debt disappeared since then? I explicitly linked usdebtclock.org which shows the national debt now at nearly $20 trillion. This is higher than before. That means it has gone up (by trillions), which is assuredly the opposite of down. You're looking at a graph of the deficit showing there's no surplus and not putting together that that means increasing debt? Since English doesn't seem to be your first language, I will understand why you don't understand mathematics. This is too funny for me not to keep you in the dark as to why. On November 06 2016 04:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The US has a total debt.
Each year, that total debt can either increase, or decrease, depending on expenditures.
During George Bush's time, the debt was increasing by 7%-9% per year spiking to 11%-18% during the recession (this is when the bailouts were happening)
As banks, and factories were being saved/allowed to fail expenditures were getting cut, as could be seen by the decrease in yearly debt increase. Sure, 18% was added to the debt in 2008, but only 13% was added by 2010, and only 9% in 2011 as companies kept getting bailed out. (This is where your graph stops, which you have to make it stop here otherwise people would see your malicious deception)
There is total debt accumulated, and there is amount added to the debt. Eisenhower and Truman were able to shrink the debt by less than 2% but otherwise every president has been adding to the national debt since the founding of the United States. This means that majority of the debt is actually the work of past administration, and not current ones. So what's the best way to track who's responsible for what? You track the yearly increase or decrease in debt--as that is the money you've added to or removed from the national debt, the rest were added by previous administrations. So let us look at that.
In 2012, at the end of Obama's term, the debt was only increased by 8%, which is at the same rate as Bush had been doing it before the recession when everyone thought the US Economy was invincible. The yearly increase in debt has been shrinking even more since then with only 4% added in 2013, 6% added in 2014, and a mere 1.8% added in 2015.
So though the total debt is high, actions to shrink down our expenditure has been miles ahead of the Bush administration and much closer to the Clinton Administration's expenditures--the highest surplus in US history.
For context, bailing out the banks affected the national debt much less than almost any given year in the Reagan Administration where he added as much as 20% to the debt. The conversation before you butted in was RealityIsKing said the debt doubled, hunts said it decreased. All I did was expose reality I am not having the argument about whether Obama did better or worse than he should have, I was clarifying what reality is. The graph is not misleading, it's just the first I saw that explained the difference between up and down. You did no such thing, you showed a graph that only took 2 years of obama's presidency into account, I then showed 2 graphs that proved you and the other guy wrong, and you ignored it and kept arguing that somehow your graph which cuts off 6 important years is somehow relevant. I haven't been following your argument closely, hunts, are you currently claiming that the debt decreased during the obama years? Right now the debt is less than it was when he came into office, yes.
you are factually incorrect.
you are confusing the word debt, with the word deficit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/feb/27/debt-vs-deficit-whats-difference/
there's one link to explain it, there are many others available.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
all this focus on banking and finance, wall street vs main street. the main change is really in how main street is run.
finance and management incentive structures etc def played role in that but when you have 3 billion people coming into the global labor market, companies have to respond.
blaming globalization on neoliberalism, finance, trade deals etc not productive. it's just reality and here to stay. you are much better off setting your goal to be guiding globalization to better outcomes.
|
On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:From the NY Times Editorial Board: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation.
Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton. But no one knows better than Mrs. Clinton that this is the tooth-and-claw political season where accusations are going to fly for the next 19 months. And no one should know better than the former senator and first lady that they will fester if straightforward answers are not offered to the public.
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign — the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.
The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clintons is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.
It’s an axiom in politics that money always creates important friendships, influence and special consideration. Wise politicians recognize this danger and work to keep it at bay. When she announced her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the foundation board (Bill Clinton remains on the board). This was followed by the announcement of tighter foundation restrictions on donations from foreign countries, which had resumed after she left the State Department.
These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away. Source.I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead?
Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored.
|
On November 06 2016 04:49 oneofthem wrote:
all this focus on banking and finance, wall street vs main street. the main change is really in how main street is run.
finance and management incentive structures etc def played role in that but when you have 3 billion people coming into the global labor market, companies have to respond.
blaming globalization on neoliberalism, finance, trade deals etc not productive. it's just reality and here to stay. you are much better off setting your goal to be guiding globalization to better outcomes.
The Republican platform is build on going back to the past.
They want to undo the social progress by making gay marriage illegal.
They want to undo the ACA, which while far from perfect, was a step forward in the terms of offering healthcare to those who need it.
Heck Trumps whole slogan is Make America great Again. Implying that the past was better then the future.
Pretending that globalization can be undone and that low skilled labor can be brought back to the US perfectly fits into that vision.
Yes it is is completely fictitious but when was a conflicting reality ever stopped the current wave of Republicans?
|
On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:From the NY Times Editorial Board: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation.
Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton. But no one knows better than Mrs. Clinton that this is the tooth-and-claw political season where accusations are going to fly for the next 19 months. And no one should know better than the former senator and first lady that they will fester if straightforward answers are not offered to the public.
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign — the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.
The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clintons is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.
It’s an axiom in politics that money always creates important friendships, influence and special consideration. Wise politicians recognize this danger and work to keep it at bay. When she announced her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the foundation board (Bill Clinton remains on the board). This was followed by the announcement of tighter foundation restrictions on donations from foreign countries, which had resumed after she left the State Department.
These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away. Source.I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored.
Would the proposed actions (not accepting foreign donations and the Clinton's leaving the board) be sufficient for you if they were followed through?
If so then surely we should focus on making sure this is actually what happens rather then focusing on that they once did it differently (and changed it to the new proposal based on complaints)?
If it isn't enough for you then what do you think they should do to remove potential fears of influence?
|
On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:From the NY Times Editorial Board: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation.
Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton. But no one knows better than Mrs. Clinton that this is the tooth-and-claw political season where accusations are going to fly for the next 19 months. And no one should know better than the former senator and first lady that they will fester if straightforward answers are not offered to the public.
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign — the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.
The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clintons is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.
It’s an axiom in politics that money always creates important friendships, influence and special consideration. Wise politicians recognize this danger and work to keep it at bay. When she announced her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton resigned from the foundation board (Bill Clinton remains on the board). This was followed by the announcement of tighter foundation restrictions on donations from foreign countries, which had resumed after she left the State Department.
These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away. Source.I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored.
But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest.
If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012.
|
On November 06 2016 04:49 oneofthem wrote:
all this focus on banking and finance, wall street vs main street. the main change is really in how main street is run.
finance and management incentive structures etc def played role in that but when you have 3 billion people coming into the global labor market, companies have to respond.
blaming globalization on neoliberalism, finance, trade deals etc not productive. it's just reality and here to stay. you are much better off setting your goal to be guiding globalization to better outcomes.
The idea of "reality that is here to stay" is the biggest enemy of the Trump supporter. They're not actually upset about the effect of globalisation, they're upset about the fact that it is something they can't control and that imposes changes on their lives. That's why they claim that climate change isn't real. Because it's something that is out there, will affect them and dictate what we need to do. They are like children, they'd rather smash everything in than accept that they are not in control.
Just like 'build the wall' it's all performative and a giant dick waving contest. I don't think you will make progress with that part of the population if you tell them that we can make globalisation work for them, if they'd care about material benefits they'd not be voting for Trump. It's not about outcomes but about taking direct control in a world where that's not possible anymore, which is pretty problematic
|
Also if someone cites conflicts of interests are a major reasons for not voting for Clinton, I would point out that Trump has the exact same issue. The major difference is that Trump refused to place his holding in a blind trust and plans to keep up with the day to day operation of his company through his children. Clinton has at least attempted to address the issue with the CF without completely dismantling the charity.
|
On November 06 2016 05:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:49 oneofthem wrote:
all this focus on banking and finance, wall street vs main street. the main change is really in how main street is run.
finance and management incentive structures etc def played role in that but when you have 3 billion people coming into the global labor market, companies have to respond.
blaming globalization on neoliberalism, finance, trade deals etc not productive. it's just reality and here to stay. you are much better off setting your goal to be guiding globalization to better outcomes. The idea of "reality that is here to stay" is the biggest enemy of the Trump supporter. They're not actually upset about the effect of globalisation, they're upset about the fact that it is something they can't control and that imposes changes on their lives. That's why they claim that climate change isn't real. Because it's something that is out there, will affect them and dictate what we need to do. They are like children, they'd rather smash everything in than accept that they are not in control. Just like 'build the wall' it's all performative and a giant dick waving contest. I don't think you will make progress with that part of the population if you tell them that we can make globalisation work for them, if they'd care about material benefits they'd not be voting for Trump. It's not about outcomes but about taking direct control in a world where that's not possible anymore, which is pretty problematic
while I agree that the trump position is not supported by reality, I don't think the reasons you describe are the reasons for the incorrect beliefs, at least not in primary part.
One of the basic challenges in the modern age is that the amount of information is so vast that people cannot check things for themselves, they can't even verify a small fraction of it. They must rely on curators to assess the correctness of claims for them. Some people chose to rely on unreliable curators, in part because a curator can make a lot of money/power by getting others to believe in their accuracy.
|
On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:On November 06 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:From the NY Times Editorial Board: [quote] Source.I seem to recall a certain somebody whose username began with x and ended in Daunt making the same point a couple days ago. Again, and legality aside, is this the type of stuff that we want to tolerate from our politicians? You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012.
I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sorts of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it.
|
On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sort of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it.
Your right, the public shouldn't have to tolerate it.
But thanks to the American system there is no other option.
Its Hillary or Trump and atleast Hillary as offered to remove herself from the Clinton Foundation and its influence as best she can.
And before someone mentions Bernie or 3e party. I would prefer a competent corrupt politician over an incompetent purist.
|
On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sort of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it.
Alright, so it sounds like we're in agreement from the last few pages:
1) There is not a reasonable fear of CF conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency, and
2) Barack Obama has reduced the federal deficit significantly, although the national debt is still rising, albeit more slowly.
Now if you want to talk about a charitable donation to the CF from 2012 indicating HRC has poor character and shouldn't be president, I'll point to Donald Trump repeatedly saying he'll donate to charity and then not doing it, or using charitable donations to his foundation for self-serving purposes in an illegal use of charity funds, including such absurd and self-aggrandizing expenditures as a several thousand dollar portrait of himself, and say that Donald Trump's character is pretty evidently worse. At least Hillary's donation thing wasn't illegal.
|
On November 05 2016 22:44 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 22:24 Probe1 wrote:
It's funny how Trump is more popular on the internet with people who aren't Americans than he is here.
Team chaos Dunno man to me it seems like most Trump supporters in this thread are American. Yes, you have 3 or 4 regular posters who support Trump and aren't American but that's it, the rest of foreigners here don't support him. If you mean internet in general then I think you're also wrong because Russia is like the only "relevant" country where Trump has more support than Clinton.
ISIL is relevant.
But seriously, there are plenty of countries that have said nice things about Trump. They just tend to either be oppressive dictatorships (DPRK etc) or post-communist & non-NATO.
|
On November 06 2016 02:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 06 2016 02:10 Madkipz wrote:On November 06 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 19:37 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 18:55 ragz_gt wrote:On November 05 2016 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:On November 05 2016 18:45 Tachion wrote:
[quote]
Plenty of dems feel the same way, I mean that was a gigantic part of bernies appeal, being anti-establishment. Unfortunately, many Bernie supporters don't value this above Trump's many other faults and policies. Bernie felt like a uniter, and trump a divider. Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation... This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that. As Zizek said, it doesnt matter what Trump does as president, him getting elected is a big slap to the current political process and the "establishment" will be forced to rethink their position and policies. Yes, just damage the lives of countless citizens so you can have a "political shake-up". Never mind the incredible harm he would do to our economy, foreign policy, and social equality. Totally worth it just to give a big middle finger to The Man. Not to mention that your entire belief rests on the gloriously ignorant belief that Trump will actually change anything and isn't the very embodiment of sleazy corruption himself. Glorious ignorant belief? Why so agressive? Im sorry i dont support Hillary, im also sorry that you think less of me because of that. Ive said a lot of times here that both candidates are horse**** candidates but you just assume I think hes the best thing that ever happened and attack me because of that. You also speak like its a fact he would cause "incredible harm to your economy, social equallity and foreign policy", and obviously you undermine people who in your opinion fail to have the same smart/rational/logic/unmistakable tought process that made you reach your conclusions. Mind if i called those conclusions ignorant, like you did for mine? Well sorry once again, if you speak in absolutes to me like you do, I will share your opinion of me on your mental process. Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. I never said that you were a lesser person because of your opinion. I merely criticized your opinion. Deal with it. It's not some kind of complicated mystery as to what Trump's policies would do to the country. He's either explicitly laid out several things that he would do that would be complete and total disasters (cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy, repealing Obamacare with no legitimate alternative, advocating for nuclear proliferation, etc.) or he has repeatedly shown that he simply has no solution whatsoever (ISIS, healthcare). He also explicitly incites hatred along racial, gender, and religious lines by ostracizing Muslims, kicking his own black supporters out of rallies, explicitly encouraging voter intimidation, and being the walking embodiment of sexism and male privilege. Let's not also forget that he has repeatedly and explicitly states that he would use his powers to conduct totalitarian practices, like jailing his political opponent or using his political power to silence journalists. In what world is this man anti-establishment? In what world is he the kind of candidate that will do anything whatsoever to improve the lives of the average person? He is the very establishment that tries to bribe politicians in the first place, and he explicitly espouses totalitarian practices that are the antithesis of everything that a democracy is supposed to be. His long list of actual court cases and demonstrably fraudulent business practices put the scandals of most any politician (including Clinton) to shame. So why is it that you can see (or at least sympathize with others that see) Trump as "anti-establishment" and the kind of candidate that would disrupt the political status quo enough to cause long-term positive change? What positive change do you actually see that would outweigh the incredible harm his (minimum) 4 years of policy would bring? Most of what you've written is just the media taking him out of context. You can't just read a bunch of headlines and zinger quotes followed by writing from a journalist obviously committed to a narrative. Nobody actually knows what his plans will accomplish, let alone the impact he will have. People said some of the same things about brexit, and what you fail to realize is that people voting trump generally don't care about the economy. Because they don't have a stake in it. They care about jobs, and trump has promised to bring them back through bullying, putting up tariffs and making outsourcing more expensive. This will obviously ruin the economy, but nobody saw a dime of that money anyhow, so why should they care? They don't know what 4 years of Trump will be, but they know what 4 years of Hillary will be. It's the kind of "I don't like you (the media, Hillary clinton, globalism), so now Trump is my friend" situation. The amazing thing about Trump is that pretty much none of it is out of context. He has explicitly stated that he will try to sue media outlets to silence them. He explicitly stated several times in a debate that he will try to jail Clinton after he becomes president. He has explicitly encouraged people to go out to polls to monitor them (see: Ohio restraining order that was recently issued). His economic plan has been thoroughly analyzed and would explode the debt much further than Clinton's and probably cause a recession. The standard line when people say bad things about candidates in any election is, "well, you're just taking it out of context." The problem is that we aren't taking Trump out of context or twisting his words. These are all things he has explicitly said/done. You're waffling, earlier it was "using his powers to conduct totalitarian practices," now it's suing; earlier it was voter intimidation, now it's election monitoring. Clarity matters if you're going to make an argument for NukeD and then demand he defend it on your terms.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866
Using his office's influence/powers to expand libel laws so he can sue journalists that he doesn't like is textbook totalitarian practice and he has explicitly stated that he would do this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/trump-clinton-voter-intimidation/index.html
An Ohio judge just recently put a restraining order on the Trump campaign and took Trump's lawyer to town over the fact that there is no legitimate reason (i.e. zero credible evidence) to support the need for Trump supporters to perform "election monitoring", and that it was 100% clearly a voter intimidation tactic.
But we know your posting history oBlade, so I'm not surprised that you conveniently forgot these facts.
|
Trump just said in a speech that "All men are created equal" is not true and then went on to explain how some people were smarter than others. His understanding of the basic tenets of our democracy is appalling. There are 5th graders across America who have a better grasp on the Declaration of Independence than the GOP nominee.
|
On November 06 2016 05:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 02:39 oBlade wrote:On November 06 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 06 2016 02:10 Madkipz wrote:On November 06 2016 01:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 22:57 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 05 2016 19:37 NukeD wrote:On November 05 2016 18:55 ragz_gt wrote:On November 05 2016 18:49 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Some of us are also able to see how incredibly obvious it is that Trump won't do anything to help with this specific situation... This... like really? Are people really counting on a guy who literally spent a life exploiting economical inequality to do anything different? I guess he could be so bad that he would single-handedly change the course of public momentum.... so there is that. As Zizek said, it doesnt matter what Trump does as president, him getting elected is a big slap to the current political process and the "establishment" will be forced to rethink their position and policies. Yes, just damage the lives of countless citizens so you can have a "political shake-up". Never mind the incredible harm he would do to our economy, foreign policy, and social equality. Totally worth it just to give a big middle finger to The Man. Not to mention that your entire belief rests on the gloriously ignorant belief that Trump will actually change anything and isn't the very embodiment of sleazy corruption himself. Glorious ignorant belief? Why so agressive? Im sorry i dont support Hillary, im also sorry that you think less of me because of that. Ive said a lot of times here that both candidates are horse**** candidates but you just assume I think hes the best thing that ever happened and attack me because of that. You also speak like its a fact he would cause "incredible harm to your economy, social equallity and foreign policy", and obviously you undermine people who in your opinion fail to have the same smart/rational/logic/unmistakable tought process that made you reach your conclusions. Mind if i called those conclusions ignorant, like you did for mine? Well sorry once again, if you speak in absolutes to me like you do, I will share your opinion of me on your mental process. Its not like I dont see what you are saying, I dont agree with your conclusions tho. I never said that you were a lesser person because of your opinion. I merely criticized your opinion. Deal with it. It's not some kind of complicated mystery as to what Trump's policies would do to the country. He's either explicitly laid out several things that he would do that would be complete and total disasters (cutting taxes, particularly on the wealthy, repealing Obamacare with no legitimate alternative, advocating for nuclear proliferation, etc.) or he has repeatedly shown that he simply has no solution whatsoever (ISIS, healthcare). He also explicitly incites hatred along racial, gender, and religious lines by ostracizing Muslims, kicking his own black supporters out of rallies, explicitly encouraging voter intimidation, and being the walking embodiment of sexism and male privilege. Let's not also forget that he has repeatedly and explicitly states that he would use his powers to conduct totalitarian practices, like jailing his political opponent or using his political power to silence journalists. In what world is this man anti-establishment? In what world is he the kind of candidate that will do anything whatsoever to improve the lives of the average person? He is the very establishment that tries to bribe politicians in the first place, and he explicitly espouses totalitarian practices that are the antithesis of everything that a democracy is supposed to be. His long list of actual court cases and demonstrably fraudulent business practices put the scandals of most any politician (including Clinton) to shame. So why is it that you can see (or at least sympathize with others that see) Trump as "anti-establishment" and the kind of candidate that would disrupt the political status quo enough to cause long-term positive change? What positive change do you actually see that would outweigh the incredible harm his (minimum) 4 years of policy would bring? Most of what you've written is just the media taking him out of context. You can't just read a bunch of headlines and zinger quotes followed by writing from a journalist obviously committed to a narrative. Nobody actually knows what his plans will accomplish, let alone the impact he will have. People said some of the same things about brexit, and what you fail to realize is that people voting trump generally don't care about the economy. Because they don't have a stake in it. They care about jobs, and trump has promised to bring them back through bullying, putting up tariffs and making outsourcing more expensive. This will obviously ruin the economy, but nobody saw a dime of that money anyhow, so why should they care? They don't know what 4 years of Trump will be, but they know what 4 years of Hillary will be. It's the kind of "I don't like you (the media, Hillary clinton, globalism), so now Trump is my friend" situation. The amazing thing about Trump is that pretty much none of it is out of context. He has explicitly stated that he will try to sue media outlets to silence them. He explicitly stated several times in a debate that he will try to jail Clinton after he becomes president. He has explicitly encouraged people to go out to polls to monitor them (see: Ohio restraining order that was recently issued). His economic plan has been thoroughly analyzed and would explode the debt much further than Clinton's and probably cause a recession. The standard line when people say bad things about candidates in any election is, "well, you're just taking it out of context." The problem is that we aren't taking Trump out of context or twisting his words. These are all things he has explicitly said/done. You're waffling, earlier it was "using his powers to conduct totalitarian practices," now it's suing; earlier it was voter intimidation, now it's election monitoring. Clarity matters if you're going to make an argument for NukeD and then demand he defend it on your terms. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866Using his office's influence/powers to expand libel laws so he can sue journalists that he doesn't like is textbook totalitarian practice and he has explicitly stated that he would do this. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/trump-clinton-voter-intimidation/index.htmlAn Ohio judge just recently put a restraining order on the Trump campaign and took Trump's lawyer to town over the fact that there is no legitimate reason (i.e. zero credible evidence) to support the need for Trump supporters to perform "election monitoring", and that it was 100% clearly a voter intimidation tactic. But we know your posting history oBlade, so I'm not surprised that you conveniently forgot these facts.
I conveniently forgot a news story from yesterday, yes.
Most states allow partisan election observers. The article you linked also notes a similar case failed in Arizona. Apart from that we probably won't agree on what totalitarian means as I don't think totalitarians bother with going to court and after all these months have yet to get an explanation of how libel laws practically can be part of the president's job.
|
They allow partisan observers. But that is all they are allowed to do, observe. And they need approval from the people running the polls if they want to be in the polling place. They are not allowed to confront or question people who are trying to vote. That is the opposite of what many of the "protect the vote" groups are attempting to do. They want to challenge people directly, which is a classic tactic of voter suppression.
And of course they appealed it. But these tactics are as old as the United States itself. They were employed against the Irish, blacks and any other minority that people did not want voting. It was a favorite tactic of the KKK after blacks were allowed to vote, which is why it is prohibited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/alfredgraph.png?id=HDTGPDUSQ163N,HDTGPDUSQ163N&nsh=1&vintage_date=2016-06-01,2016-08-01&cosd=2005-01-01,2005-01-01&coed=2015-10-01,2016-01-01&type=image/png&chart_type=column&width=600&height=400)
