Clinton donor received top spot on State Department intel board

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Luiz said:

the spoils system never died  

 

from the outside looking in this appears to be blatant corruption. want to get your foot in the door to big time  DC politics? pay hillary and you're in. regardless whether anyone else does this kind of thing (its been done forever) hillary clinton is clumsy enough to get popped for it.

 

this looks bad no matter how you slice it, the majority will  view this and come away with nothing but a sour taste in their mouth. you can get into the details of this and try to find a way to absolve her of any wrongdoing  all you want but that **** doesnt matter a bit in the end. story makes the bitch look shady, because she just has always come off shady. this adds to that

Yeah it definitely looks bad no matter how you try to absolve it that's true. 

Love your avatar lol

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

I'm ****ing tired of this. For once I'd like someone here to not ****ing discuss these issues and their assumptions and conclusions with such confidence in their own confirmation bias.

"undeniably true".

ugh  

The fact that you don't think political donations have any sort of bearing on the policy positions of candidates

You really think this isn't undeniably true? 

"She is part of the establishment and corporations donate to her because they expect something in return. They continue to donate to her because they have received returns on their investments before."

How?? I mean even the Hillary supporters I know IRL accept that as obvious. Corporations are not just throwing around money for nothing. Don't be so naive.

We just saw an example of a donor getting a position at ISAB and you can excuse that as a random accident where Hillary just happened to choose someone who has donated millions to her campaign. Despite even the articles YOU quote admitting it is as close as evidence to political favors as you can reasonably get.

Do you think that doesn't happen large scale too? Are you really so naive that you think these corporations keep spending money on Hillary's campaign thinking thinking that they won't get any sort of reimbursement?

It would be difficult, for example, not to worry about at least the potential for a conflict of interest, when weapons manufacturers and Saudi Arabia were making donations to the Clinton Foundation while their weapons deals were approved by the State Department, oil companies were doing the same before the State Department approved the oil sands pipeline project, and other fossil fuels donated at around the same time the secretary was advocating increased fracking abroad.

I really don't think you are a stupid person, so when you choose to ignore such an obvious criticism of Hillary I can only assume you are faking naivety in order justify a major flaw in your favourite candidate.

My favourite article about this whole topic:

" Of course there is no quid pro quo – that has never been the prime criticism of wealthy individuals using their vast resources to “buy” elections, push candidates in one direction, or influence office holders in much more subtle and nuanced ways than outright bribery.

And by taking this position that only quid pro quo equals corruption, Clinton supporters are essentially adopting the reasoning of the Roberts court that they claim to abhor – that unless there is direct evidence of overtly trading money for votes, corruption doesn’t exist. As Lawrence Lessig has written, Democrats have been slowly embracing this stance for years, but the Clinton campaign seems to cementing it as the party’s policy.

No one has made this point better than Clinton surrogate and former representative Barney Frank – or should I say, the 2012 version of him. Last week, Frank accused Sanders supporters of engaging in McCarthyism by suggesting that politicians, and Clinton in particular, are influenced by big money contributions from wealthy backers, and as a result, did not push for prosecutions of the executives of large banks. However, Frank sang an altogether different tune about the influence of campaign contributions when he was leaving Congress in 2012.

“People say, ‘Oh, it doesn’t have any effect on me,’” Frank told NPR at the time about the constant need to continually raise money as a congressman. “Well if that were the case, we’d be the only human beings in the history of the world who on a regular basis took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and made sure that it had no effect on our behavior.”

I guess we can assume Clinton is the first person in the history of the world to avoid this problem altogether then."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/if-hillary-clinton-isnt-influenced-by-wall-street-cash_b_9165672.html

When you want to have an honest conversation then I'll engage with you. For now find solace in the fact that you don't apparently discuss issues with "assumptions and conclusions with such confidence in their own confirmation bias."

[Adakam 2]

9 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I can't wait.

Me neither, anyway, so, apparently, Hillary helped a friend who she thought was capable of doing a "high profile" job, who apparently wasnt really capable of it (even though I dont see that he failed at that job) then it means corruption and that she isnt thrustworthy and stuff, but when a celebrity who calls himself a business man (even though he got started at it with a millioare loan from his father), has had LOTS of business failures, set up a fraud university, and cant even pay his bills wants to be a president, then its cool and everyone wants to suck his orange penis?

awesome!