|
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 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 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.
The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream".
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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: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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream".
Just for you then.
Yes I am fine with former Presidents becoming multi-millionaires based on their name and political influence. It takes an extraordinary person to become President and that shows itself by the interest the world has in them after they finish their tenure.
|
On November 06 2016 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:[quote] 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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream". Just for you then. Yes I am fine with former Presidents becoming multi-millionaires based on their name and political influence. It takes an extraordinary person to become President and that shows itself by the interest the world has in them after they finish their tenure.
You do remember George Bush was president right?
|
On November 06 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream". Just for you then. Yes I am fine with former Presidents becoming multi-millionaires based on their name and political influence. It takes an extraordinary person to become President and that shows itself by the interest the world has in them after they finish their tenure. You do remember George Bush was president right?
And unlike Bill, or probably Obama, the world didn't give two shits about George Bush after he left the white house no?
Though the bar does seem pretty low this season :/
|
On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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: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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream".
I don't necessarily have a problem with famous and well-connected people using their fame and connections to become rich, it depends on the context. It's not "the American Dream," and it might seem unfair sometimes that people with name recognition, even for irrelevant reasons, have opportunities that most people don't. At the same time having fame and connections can help solve coordination problems and leave the economy better off as a whole. From what I can tell the CF has done quite a lot of good in the world, and to my knowledge there is no evidence that Clinton actually sold policy changes in exchange for charitable donations.
Meanwhile I do have a problem with people getting rich on stiffing contractors and abusing the legal system to avoid paying the penalties of illegal behavior. And if we're discussing past behaviors that we shouldn't tolerate from our leaders, I'd put discriminating against blacks in housing practices pretty high on the list. It's telling that the actions Clinton is accused of are, at the very least, perfectly legal,while Trump's many sins usually were legal, and he just had the clout and crack legal team to avoid the law applying to him.
|
On November 06 2016 07:06 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:[quote] 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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream". Just for you then. Yes I am fine with former Presidents becoming multi-millionaires based on their name and political influence. It takes an extraordinary person to become President and that shows itself by the interest the world has in them after they finish their tenure. You do remember George Bush was president right? And unlike Bill, or probably Obama, the world didn't give two shits about George Bush after he left the white house no? Though the bar does seem pretty low this season :/
People are paying him 6 figures too.
The second Bush president, as of May 2011, had given some 140 talks, for at least $15 million, based on an estimate from his office, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Since then? “I don’t have such a record of his speeches,” current spokesman Freddy Ford said. His non-paid speeches given under the auspices of his library and foundation are logged with transcripts at bushcenter.org. His paid speeches, though, are much harder to track, forcing interested parties to collect snippets from local media and company websites to paste together an invariably incomplete list.
Source
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream". Just for you then. Yes I am fine with former Presidents becoming multi-millionaires based on their name and political influence. It takes an extraordinary person to become President and that shows itself by the interest the world has in them after they finish their tenure. You do remember George Bush was president right?
Just because we don't like him doesn't diminish the accomplishment of being President.
|
On November 06 2016 07:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 07:00 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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:[quote] 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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream". Just for you then. Yes I am fine with former Presidents becoming multi-millionaires based on their name and political influence. It takes an extraordinary person to become President and that shows itself by the interest the world has in them after they finish their tenure. You do remember George Bush was president right? Just because we don't like him doesn't diminish the accomplishment of being President.
Maybe we're just interpreting the word "extraordinary" differently in this case. None of the things that made GWB "extraordinary" are things I consider positive/traits we want emulated. Though I wouldn't call Gov. George Bush an "extraordinary person" in the first place.
|
On November 06 2016 06:09 oBlade wrote:
...
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.
In a fully totalitarian state, the people in control of it wouldn't bother going to court, no.
Happily, the United States of America is not in fact a totalitarian state at this time, and can't be turned into one in a brief moment, and so aspiring totalitarians don't have a choice about going to court if they want to get what they want. They can however amend the legal system to make it easier for themselves to get whatever they want.
To draw an analogy, the tree of liberty must slowly and gradually be rotted away from the inside before it will fall.
edit: with respect to GWB, I would not mistake "insufficiently extraordinary to be a particularly good President" with "not extraordinary".
|
On November 06 2016 07:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 06:09 oBlade wrote:
...
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. In a fully totalitarian state, the people in control of it wouldn't bother going to court, no. Happily, the United States of America is not in fact a totalitarian state at this time, and can't be turned into one in a brief moment, and so aspiring totalitarians don't have a choice about going to court if they want to get what they want. They can however amend the legal system to make it easier for themselves to get whatever they want. To draw an analogy, the tree of liberty must slowly and gradually be rotted away from the inside before it will fall. edit: with respect to GWB, I would not mistake "insufficiently extraordinary to be a particularly good President" with "not extraordinary".
In what ways are you imagining him as extraordinary?
|
On November 06 2016 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote: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: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. The answer they wont give you is "Yes, we do think politicians should be come multi-millionaires trading on their name in politics and influence, within the law. It's the American dream".
The very nature of the Presidential race ensures that only people with bankable names and images will even be in the running. Or that they will become bankable after becoming President. It's entirely ingrained in a system that involves a media circus putting a spotlight on you for a year.
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 08:42 NukeD wrote:Interesting link on worldwide Trump v Hillary polls: worldwide.vote
It's only interesting if you ignore the world of evidence that we have that those results are biased. I think Trump has barely double digit support in France and they give 60% here.
(Yeah the numbers are 86% for Clinton)
|
On November 06 2016 08:42 NukeD wrote:Interesting link on worldwide Trump v Hillary polls: worldwide.vote
What a bizarre website. I mean its "polls" aren't very meaningful – relatively small sample sizes + being able to vote just by visiting the website means that its totals give very little indication of actual sentiment. Note that the US is apparently 71% pro-Trump, nowhere near where even the most Trump-leaning national poll has the race right now.
What confuses me more though, is what's the point? Why dedicate a website to a very flawed representation of what non-Americans think about the US election?
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 08:42 NukeD wrote:Interesting link on worldwide Trump v Hillary polls: worldwide.vote
Went as far as the US at 53 for Trump and stopped there.
|
On November 06 2016 08:49 ZeaL. wrote:Went as far as the US at 53 for Trump and stopped there.
Trump 93% in Russia out of 22k votes seems legit tho :D
|
I cannot fathom how someone can see this website and for a second think that this is 'interesting'. 50% in Spain and Portugal and 70% in Germany? lmao
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
