Time for Democrats to take their party from the Clintons. Even liberal groups, and now Common Cause, calling for an independent audit of donations

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 7:16 PM GMT
    The financial issues plaguing Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign have become too much even for liberal groups, and now Common Cause is calling for an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    Amid suggestions that foreign governments donated to the foundation in hopes of getting special treatment from President Obama's State Department when Clinton was his top diplomat, the group on Friday said a "thorough review" is needed.

    "Six years ago, at Mrs. Clinton's confirmation hearing for her appointment as secretary of state, then-Sen. Dick Lugar observed that 'that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.' He was right, and his remarks remain relevant today as Mrs. Clinton seeks the presidency," said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport.

    It's about time.
    ------
    ...a deal with the Russians regarding uranium was completed, and it stinks.

    Amy Davidson of the New Yorker has a good post about this deal. It asks five important questions, including this one:

    Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/time_for_democrats_to_take_their_party_from_the_clintons.html
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 26, 2015 7:47 PM GMT
    another quote from the article worth emphasizing.

    Yes, liberals need to demand more from a presidential candidate than full devotion to Roe v. Wade, an evolution on same-sex marriage, or "we need a woman in the Oval Office."

    We also need an honest person, and the Clintons are not honest people, no matter how many millions went to help little children in Haiti!




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 7:50 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidanother quote from the article worth emphasizing.

    Yes, liberals need to demand more from a presidential candidate than full devotion to Roe v. Wade, an evolution on same-sex marriage, or "we need a woman in the Oval Office."

    We also need an honest person, and the Clintons are not honest people, no matter how many millions went to help little children in Haiti!

    What I've said, and it impacted how I voted in the past is if someone is not honest, it doesn't matter too much what positions they take because they can't be trusted.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 26, 2015 7:55 PM GMT
    Exactly. I couldn't agree more. It's the "I" word.... the one they don't like to talk about because as you've pointed out... supporting someone with none means you must have none yourself...

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 26, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    I still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 26, 2015 8:16 PM GMT
    If honesty really is an important factor then it sure doesn't rationalize supporting the least honest potential candidate for president.

    Saying you "believe" Hillary to be honest would require you to disregard all the known lies and dishonest interactions she's been involved in since 1978.

    Supporting her and her known dishonesty says more about you than it does about her.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 11:22 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidIf honesty really is an important factor then it sure doesn't rationalize supporting the least honest potential candidate for president.

    Saying you "believe" Hillary to be honest would require you to disregard all the known lies and dishonest interactions she's been involved in since 1978.

    Supporting her and her known dishonesty says more about you than it does about her.

    Yup. If you tolerate dishonesty in others, then you tolerate dishonesty in yourself. The Hillary supporters who have access to the facts know this about themselves. Bet they don't have the best self-image.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 11:31 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.

    +1

    These guys urging us to not support Hillary are doing it because of a strategy. To reject the best candidate Democrats have, allowing one of the Republican homophobes that they support to just walk right into the White House. ummm... no thanks! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 26, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    ^^^^ArtDeco, truer words were never spoken. Their strategy (conscious or not) is as transparent as it is ineffective.

    Hillary 2016!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 26, 2015 11:47 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 saidI still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.

    +1

    These guys urging us to not support Hillary are doing it because of a strategy. To reject the best candidate Democrats have, allowing one of the Republican homophobes that they support to just walk right into the White House. ummm... no thanks! icon_biggrin.gif

    If Hillary is the best candidate the Democrats have, that says a lot about what the party has become. Especially unfortunate with an ex-military officer tolerates dishonesty.

    But the far-left will support her no matter what. These articles are for the moderates.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 26, 2015 11:55 PM GMT
    Newsflash: I know a few moderates. Moderates aren't very politically minded, and don't watch election coverage until (if you're lucky) the debates start, and (usually) the last few months before the election.

    If you think lukewarm voters who aren't inclined one way or another care about this GOP driven pile of nothing 1.5 years out, then you're deluding only yourself.

    Get an indictment, and we can play ball. Until then, go fish. And Benghazi!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 12:06 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidNewsflash: I know a few moderates. Moderates aren't very politically minded, and don't watch election coverage until (if you're lucky) the debates start, and (usually) the last few months before the election.

    If you think lukewarm voters who aren't inclined one way or another care about this GOP driven pile of nothing 1.5 years out, then you're deluding only yourself.

    Get an indictment, and we can play ball. Until then, go fish. And Benghazi!

    "Knowing a few moderates" means nothing compared to polls, especially the Q. Poll of registered voters in swing states. A reputation does not need an indictment to be damaged.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 27, 2015 12:16 AM GMT
    ^^Fair enough, but I think we're FAR too out from Nov. 8, 2016 to be trying to get a meaningful read on swing voters.

    At this juncture, all that can happen is: (1) beltway buzz about who the candidates for party nomination are (e.g., who is the FUTURE of the GOP/Dem party like Warren or Cruz), (2) a fatal blow to a leading candidate for nomination (e.g., a fatal blow to Bush, Hillary, Paul, Walker, etc.), (3) and some journalists can sell a few papers (or get a few internet clicks) by writing partisan (both sides are guilty) fluff pieces.

    It's really much ado about nothing. And again, if you think moderate voters will care in 1.5 years, I simply think you're mistaken. Unless you get an indictment and cripple her, she'll be the Dem nominee. Period, full stop.

    Smoking gun or this is all political masturbation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 12:32 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.


    "But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope. "

    Saw that without my glasses and thought I read pimp not pope.

    Anyway, reminded me of my favorite t-shirt ever that I got .... from a street vendor right outside of Monica's dad's home in west LA a day or so after the story broke.

    Shitty pic .... I know, but it was good for a few laughs ... even in Soviet Monica. And yeah, I'm in that shirt at that moment.


    photo 8d0cb1be-d412-4452-ae9d-394bddd3f31d.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 12:36 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said^^Fair enough, but I think we're FAR too out from Nov. 8, 2016 to be trying to get a meaningful read on swing voters.

    At this juncture, all that can happen is: (1) beltway buzz about who the candidates for party nomination are (e.g., who is the FUTURE of the GOP/Dem party like Warren or Cruz), (2) a fatal blow to a leading candidate for nomination (e.g., a fatal blow to Bush, Hillary, Paul, Walker, etc.), (3) and some journalists can sell a few papers (or get a few internet clicks) by writing partisan (both sides are guilty) fluff pieces.

    It's really much ado about nothing. And again, if you think moderate voters will care in 1.5 years, I simply think you're mistaken. Unless you get an indictment and cripple her, she'll be the Dem nominee. Period, full stop.

    Smoking gun or this is all political masturbation.

    It's not much ado about nothing, given the position of several mainstream outlets often friendly to the left, Democratic donors, and some left-leaning sites. It doesn't have to be indictable or even a smoking gun, say a documented quid pro quo. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence would be enough. She is already the but of media jokes, including SNL, which can be corrosive to a candidate.

    Agree that it's far to early to predict what will happen. I care more about integrity than party. If the Democrats were to put up someone like Joe Manchin, as an example, not knowing all his positions, but assuming he is trustworthy with reasonable positions, versus a Ted Cruz or even Rand Paul, I would be strongly inclined to vote for Manchin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 12:41 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Svnw688 said^^Fair enough, but I think we're FAR too out from Nov. 8, 2016 to be trying to get a meaningful read on swing voters.

    At this juncture, all that can happen is: (1) beltway buzz about who the candidates for party nomination are (e.g., who is the FUTURE of the GOP/Dem party like Warren or Cruz), (2) a fatal blow to a leading candidate for nomination (e.g., a fatal blow to Bush, Hillary, Paul, Walker, etc.), (3) and some journalists can sell a few papers (or get a few internet clicks) by writing partisan (both sides are guilty) fluff pieces.

    It's really much ado about nothing. And again, if you think moderate voters will care in 1.5 years, I simply think you're mistaken. Unless you get an indictment and cripple her, she'll be the Dem nominee. Period, full stop.

    Smoking gun or this is all political masturbation.

    It's not much ado about nothing, given the position of several mainstream outlets often friendly to the left, Democratic donors, and some left-leaning sites. It doesn't have to be indictable or even a smoking gun, say a documented quid pro quo. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence would be enough. She is already the but of media jokes, including SNL, which can be corrosive to a candidate.

    Agree that it's far to early to predict what will happen. I care more about integrity than party. If the Democrats were to put up someone like Joe Manchin, as an example, not knowing all his positions, but assuming he is trustworthy with reasonable positions, versus a Ted Cruz or even Rand Paul, I would be strongly inclined to vote for Manchin.


    "political masturbation"

    nuttin wrong with that. After all, there are washable keyboards.

    http://www.sealshield.com/
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 27, 2015 12:49 AM GMT
    ^^Gross lol icon_cool.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 27, 2015 12:54 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Svnw688 said^^Fair enough, but I think we're FAR too out from Nov. 8, 2016 to be trying to get a meaningful read on swing voters.

    At this juncture, all that can happen is: (1) beltway buzz about who the candidates for party nomination are (e.g., who is the FUTURE of the GOP/Dem party like Warren or Cruz), (2) a fatal blow to a leading candidate for nomination (e.g., a fatal blow to Bush, Hillary, Paul, Walker, etc.), (3) and some journalists can sell a few papers (or get a few internet clicks) by writing partisan (both sides are guilty) fluff pieces.

    It's really much ado about nothing. And again, if you think moderate voters will care in 1.5 years, I simply think you're mistaken. Unless you get an indictment and cripple her, she'll be the Dem nominee. Period, full stop.

    Smoking gun or this is all political masturbation.

    It's not much ado about nothing, given the position of several mainstream outlets often friendly to the left, Democratic donors, and some left-leaning sites. It doesn't have to be indictable or even a smoking gun, say a documented quid pro quo. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence would be enough. She is already the but of media jokes, including SNL, which can be corrosive to a candidate.

    Agree that it's far to early to predict what will happen. I care more about integrity than party. If the Democrats were to put up someone like Joe Manchin, as an example, not knowing all his positions, but assuming he is trustworthy with reasonable positions, versus a Ted Cruz or even Rand Paul, I would be strongly inclined to vote for Manchin.


    Completely agree, you don't need an indictment or smoking gun per se, I misspoke there. But I think you see what I was getting at, it's going to take some STRONG circumstantial evidence to support a quid pro quo or similarly damning allegation against Hillary. Also bear in mind she doesn't handle day to day functions of the charity, she "has people" who do many of the things, so I'd anticipate a fall gay or gal even IF such evidence came out.

    Not saying that's right, IF that were the case, but it's what I would envision happening. I will acknowledge that Hillary is often mired in odd allegations, but I don't see these witch hunts as hurting her. She comes out smelling like roses after every investigation and inquiry, and let's not forget the Republicans are poised to overreach--as they often do. Let us not forget when the GOP went on a witchhunt against Clinton, found a lie about a blowjob, and after the FAILED impeachment talks Clinton (Bill) came out with HIGHER approval numbers than ever before. The GOP overreach then BACKFIRED and the political backlash was seen in the polls.

    And for the record, I want the media, left right and center, to go after Hillary. I don't want her to have a free pass. It is the media's job to grill EVERY politician who wants to be President. She's a big girl, she can take a fair fight. I am not afraid of what the media will uncover. So insofar that the "left" media is looking her up and down, good. I am confident I'll be proud of what they do and don't find. A strong woman with business and international experience.

    I do not share the same confidence for top GOP candidates now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 1:14 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    socalfitness said
    Svnw688 said^^Fair enough, but I think we're FAR too out from Nov. 8, 2016 to be trying to get a meaningful read on swing voters.

    At this juncture, all that can happen is: (1) beltway buzz about who the candidates for party nomination are (e.g., who is the FUTURE of the GOP/Dem party like Warren or Cruz), (2) a fatal blow to a leading candidate for nomination (e.g., a fatal blow to Bush, Hillary, Paul, Walker, etc.), (3) and some journalists can sell a few papers (or get a few internet clicks) by writing partisan (both sides are guilty) fluff pieces.

    It's really much ado about nothing. And again, if you think moderate voters will care in 1.5 years, I simply think you're mistaken. Unless you get an indictment and cripple her, she'll be the Dem nominee. Period, full stop.

    Smoking gun or this is all political masturbation.

    It's not much ado about nothing, given the position of several mainstream outlets often friendly to the left, Democratic donors, and some left-leaning sites. It doesn't have to be indictable or even a smoking gun, say a documented quid pro quo. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence would be enough. She is already the but of media jokes, including SNL, which can be corrosive to a candidate.

    Agree that it's far to early to predict what will happen. I care more about integrity than party. If the Democrats were to put up someone like Joe Manchin, as an example, not knowing all his positions, but assuming he is trustworthy with reasonable positions, versus a Ted Cruz or even Rand Paul, I would be strongly inclined to vote for Manchin.


    Completely agree, you don't need an indictment or smoking gun per se, I misspoke there. But I think you see what I was getting at, it's going to take some STRONG circumstantial evidence to support a quid pro quo or similarly damning allegation against Hillary. Also bear in mind she doesn't handle day to day functions of the charity, she "has people" who do many of the things, so I'd anticipate a fall gay or gal even IF such evidence came out.

    Not saying that's right, IF that were the case, but it's what I would envision happening. I will acknowledge that Hillary is often mired in odd allegations, but I don't see these witch hunts as hurting her. She comes out smelling like roses after every investigation and inquiry, and let's not forget the Republicans are poised to overreach--as they often do. Let us not forget when the GOP went on a witchhunt against Clinton, found a lie about a blowjob, and after the FAILED impeachment talks Clinton (Bill) came out with HIGHER approval numbers than ever before. The GOP overreach then BACKFIRED and the political backlash was seen in the polls.

    And for the record, I want the media, left right and center, to go after Hillary. I don't want her to have a free pass. It is the media's job to grill EVERY politician who wants to be President. She's a big girl, she can take a fair fight. I am not afraid of what the media will uncover. So insofar that the "left" media is looking her up and down, good. I am confident I'll be proud of what they do and don't find. A strong woman with business and international experience.

    I do not share the same confidence for top GOP candidates now.

    Fair enough about the investigations. My own view is she is fundamentally dishonest based on conspiring with key aids to use private email, wiping the server clean when it was requested to have a neutral arbitrator separate out the personal email, and lying about the whole thing. And the issue of saying the video was responsible for the attack to the next of kin - but I don't want to argue all this again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 1:49 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 saidI still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.

    +1

    These guys urging us to not support Hillary are doing it because of a strategy. To reject the best candidate Democrats have, allowing one of the Republican homophobes that they support to just walk right into the White House. ummm... no thanks! icon_biggrin.gif

    If Hillary is the best candidate the Democrats have, that says a lot about what the party has become. Especially unfortunate with an ex-military officer tolerates dishonesty.

    But the far-left will support her no matter what. These articles are for the moderates.

    Oh, I know, I know they are! That's the strategy. Undermine Hillary with gays, who are among her strongest supporters. It's one thing to have political discussions, but when it's a constant barrage of attacks, many of them personal, quoting from questionable sources of dubious or even discredited reputation, like Schweizer, then it becomes propaganda.

    And please don't play to my being a retired military officer. I know enough about honesty to recognize that every one of the leading Republican contenders are crooks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 1:51 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 saidI still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.

    +1

    These guys urging us to not support Hillary are doing it because of a strategy. To reject the best candidate Democrats have, allowing one of the Republican homophobes that they support to just walk right into the White House. ummm... no thanks! icon_biggrin.gif

    If Hillary is the best candidate the Democrats have, that says a lot about what the party has become. Especially unfortunate with an ex-military officer tolerates dishonesty.

    But the far-left will support her no matter what. These articles are for the moderates.

    Oh, I know, I know they are! That's the strategy. Undermine Hillary with gays, who are among her strongest supporters. It's one thing to have political discussions, but when it's a constant barrage of attacks, many of them personal, quoting from questionable sources of dubious or even discredited reputation, like Schweizer, then it becomes propaganda.

    And please don't play to my being a retired military officer. I know enough about honesty to recognize that every one of the leading Republican contenders are crooks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 2:36 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    Svnw688 saidI still think Clinton is honest. Cunning, but honest.

    But to the larger point, we're electing a politician, not a Pope.

    Honesty is an important factor in electing ANY politician, but not a deal breaker. It's all a negotiation between other factors (her policies, her demeanor, her acumen, etc.). I'll trade a bit of "honesty" (as the Right is caricaturing it) for her international and business savvy.

    Hillary 2016.

    +1

    These guys urging us to not support Hillary are doing it because of a strategy. To reject the best candidate Democrats have, allowing one of the Republican homophobes that they support to just walk right into the White House. ummm... no thanks! icon_biggrin.gif

    If Hillary is the best candidate the Democrats have, that says a lot about what the party has become. Especially unfortunate with an ex-military officer tolerates dishonesty.

    But the far-left will support her no matter what. These articles are for the moderates.

    Oh, I know, I know they are! That's the strategy. Undermine Hillary with gays, who are among her strongest supporters. It's one thing to have political discussions, but when it's a constant barrage of attacks, many of them personal, quoting from questionable sources of dubious or even discredited reputation, like Schweizer, then it becomes propaganda.

    And please don't play to my being a retired military officer. I know enough about honesty to recognize that every one of the leading Republican contenders are crooks.

    She was dishonest about the emails, dishonest about the videos to next of kin, and the pattern of money and favors is damning. The statement about every leading Republican being a crook is not only absurd and unfounded, it is also your crutch to support a dishonest woman. As an ex-military officer, I am disappointed to say you are also one because your standards for integrity are pretty low.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 2:46 AM GMT
    JuanPablomv89 saidI am a gay man and if I were US citizen I would not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a liar selfish fat ass hag

    When someone is fundamentally dishonest, every position they take for an election must be doubted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2015 2:58 AM GMT
    Heh heh
    Let's see, we should take the advice of Republicans---our sworn enemies---on how we should conduct our party's affairs.
    Yeah, that's happening.
    Snicker.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 27, 2015 3:21 AM GMT
    ^^The Shark speaks the truth. The fuck, it'd be like taking military strategic ops from AQAP.