Clinton supporting LGBT, but taking donations?

[Economy 53,144]

1 hour ago, ZacharyMark said:

I'm just pointing out how wrong it is.

Welcome to human society  

 

And people still wonder why Aliens refuse to contact us. They are scared of what they learn  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

I'm still confused how taking money from them constitutes endorsing their policies.

As far as I understand how this works logically, you giving money to something typically means you are endorsing it or its activities, not the other way around. 

So... This would mean that these entities are the ones endorsing Hillary, probably as a result of some relationships we don't know anything about. 

I honestly fail to see the problem.. Your posts are so illogical I can't even wrap my head around them. 

This thread is entirely xenophobic. You're basically stating that there should not be interactions between American and Middle Eastern individuals or entities due to some hangups you have with their backwards LGBT laws. You're also implying that those people are evil or something, as opposed to simply having views that we disapprove of. 

It's remarkable how you fail to see how hard you're demonizing those countries. 

Honestly you sound like Hezbollah when they demonize Lebanese institutions for taking money from the USA because we'd be endorsing their evilness

It's fascinating how you reduce the foundation's entire operations to one issue though. Are we supposed to cut ties with entities we disagree with? You can't have cordial relationships with countries that don't necessarily follow a similar culture?

So why are you only focusing on Hillary anyway? Why are you trying to draw a correlation purely towards Hillary while dismissing all the unfortunate implications that your viewpoints would produce?

~40% of oil used in the US comes from countries with dubious or outright hostile attitudes towards LGBT people. Stop driving cars and buying products from manufacturing companies that require oil then! You're endorsing those countries!

Why are you comfortable buying products made in China, Taiwan, or even Japan (probably the shirt you're wearing) when they have hostile attitudes towards LGBT people?

Where are you even getting off making assumptions about their relationship anyway? You can make deals with people you disagree with. Perhaps these nations were trying to earn her good will through money towards her foundation. Who said they were successful? Even if they were, do we know towards what exactly? There's so little certainty about anything yet you are so willing to draw conclusions based on perceptions, very much clouded by your own innate bias that just won't die...

Either way, don't we argue that bakers should bake cakes for same sex weddings even if they believe it's a sin, because transactions don't equate endorsements? Why are you so quick to use different logic when it comes to Hillary or even yourselves?

Also, how is it moral for you to get donations from countries like Denmark whose government funds are almost entirely drawn from taxes from the people who expect funds to cycle back to them through socialist systems, but it's immoral to take funds from Saudi Arabia whose governments receive most of their money from private oil drilling.

How about you deal with this issue as a grey area rather than resort to xenophobic remarks in an attempt to look hip and pro-LGBT when all you care about is to use the LGBT sentiments to craft theories based on circumstantial evidence to justify your weird hatred for Hillary.

More importantly, why do you act like Trump when it comes to Hillary?

Next thing we'll start posting about how Sanders must be a USSR plant because he spent 15 years of his youth at soviet rallies, attended many anti-USA organizations, and had visited Russia several times including his honeymoon. Proof positive!

[MelbHawker 6,583]

23 hours ago, GagaMyBlood95 said:

But do they really care if she cares? No, they are giving the money and in return, when they need something from the US, she will have to say yes because they are after all the donors. 

You see, then, when they need something, it can be both destructive for LGBT community or for someone else, but she won't be able to say no simply because they have an agreement, they pay and that's it. 

I disagree with your mindset on this issue. Firstly, you're assuming she'll 'have to say yes' to countries demands for help simply because of the donations. I highly doubt Hillary (or any politician operates like this). She cannot be that easily manipulated by nations lol. If anything, she'd assist these nations to sustain international relations as best she can. 

The agreement her foundation has with other countries in terms of funding I do not believe will dictate her political decisions. 

 

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

20 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'm still confused how taking money from them constitutes endorsing their policies.

As far as I understand how this works logically, you giving money to something typically means you are endorsing it or its activities, not the other way around. 

So... This would mean that these entities are the ones endorsing Hillary, probably as a result of some relationships we don't know anything about. 

I honestly fail to see the problem.. Your posts are so illogical I can't even wrap my head around them. 

This thread is entirely xenophobic. You're basically stating that there should not be interactions between American and Middle Eastern individuals or entities due to some hangups you have with their backwards LGBT laws. You're also implying that those people are evil or something, as opposed to simply having views that we disapprove of. 

It's remarkable how you fail to see how hard you're demonizing those countries. 

Honestly you sound like Hezbollah when they demonize Lebanese institutions for taking money from the USA because we'd be endorsing their evilness

It's fascinating how you reduce the foundation's entire operations to one issue though. Are we supposed to cut ties with entities we disagree with? You can't have cordial relationships with countries that don't necessarily follow a similar culture?

So why are you only focusing on Hillary anyway? Why are you trying to draw a correlation purely towards Hillary while dismissing all the unfortunate implications that your viewpoints would produce?

~40% of oil used in the US comes from countries with dubious or outright hostile attitudes towards LGBT people. Stop driving cars and buying products from manufacturing companies that require oil then! You're endorsing those countries!

Why are you comfortable buying products made in China, Taiwan, or even Japan (probably the shirt you're wearing) when they have hostile attitudes towards LGBT people?

Where are you even getting off making assumptions about their relationship anyway? You can make deals with people you disagree with. Perhaps these nations were trying to earn her good will through money towards her foundation. Who said they were successful? Even if they were, do we know towards what exactly? There's so little certainty about anything yet you are so willing to draw conclusions based on perceptions, very much clouded by your own innate bias that just won't die...

Either way, don't we argue that bakers should bake cakes for same sex weddings even if they believe it's a sin, because transactions don't equate endorsements? Why are you so quick to use different logic when it comes to Hillary or even yourselves?

Also, how is it moral for you to get donations from countries like Denmark whose government funds are almost entirely drawn from taxes from the people who expect funds to cycle back to them through socialist systems, but it's immoral to take funds from Saudi Arabia whose governments receive most of their money from private oil drilling.

How about you deal with this issue as a grey area rather than resort to xenophobic remarks in an attempt to look hip and pro-LGBT when all you care about is to use the LGBT sentiments to craft theories based on circumstantial evidence to justify your weird hatred for Hillary.

More importantly, why do you act like Trump when it comes to Hillary?

Next thing we'll start posting about how Sanders must be a USSR plant because he spent 15 years of his youth at soviet rallies, attended many anti-USA organizations, and had visited Russia several times including his honeymoon. Proof positive!

Okay, slow down Hilary. 

As I stated in my previous posts, I did NOT make this thread because I'm against Hilary or her foundation, or because I want Trump for president in a country I don't even live in. 

I made this thread because I found this information, so I was hoping we could have a normal discussion about the meaning of these actions. I did not assume anything.

1 hour ago, MelbHawker said:

I disagree with your mindset on this issue. Firstly, you're assuming she'll 'have to say yes' to countries demands for help simply because of the donations. I highly doubt Hillary (or any politician operates like this). She cannot be that easily manipulated by nations lol. If anything, she'd assist these nations to sustain international relations as best she can. 

The agreement her foundation has with other countries in terms of funding I do not believe will dictate her political decisions. 

 

Yeah, obviously we do, which is fine. I just have a different view on these things, and my view can me both right and wrong, just like yours.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,331]

20 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'm still confused how taking money from them constitutes endorsing their policies.

The fanaticism  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

50 minutes ago, MonsterOfSpain said:

The fanaticism  

Point out where I said something that is irrational as to constitute fanatical behavior. 

[Kayla 7,595]

A strong LGBT ally would send their checks back with a comment that says "Thank you for your support, but until you choose to treat your LGBT members of society with respect I can not accept this gift."

HOWEVER. Her doing that can mean rough relations between America and those nations. It's not just about her feelings, it's about the country's relationship to other nations- including Saudi Arabia. 

I would love for Hilldawg to be a total badass and stand up for what's right, but I also acknowledge that in her position she has to be very careful who she pisses off. 

It's really disappointing, tbh. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, GagaMyBlood95 said:

Okay, slow down Hilary. 

As I stated in my previous posts, I did NOT make this thread because I'm against Hilary or her foundation, or because I want Trump for president in a country I don't even live in. 

I made this thread because I found this information, so I was hoping we could have a normal discussion about the meaning of these actions. I did not assume anything.

Who's talking about intentions? I've never seen you before so I haven't established assumptions about your intent. Although, it doesn't help that the phrasing of your question is already biased in its expectations. You're asking people if she's a hypocrite, not their thoughts on the matter in general.

Your question: This shows that the Clinton Foundation has actually received A LOT of money from countries that, well, aren't very good when it comes to LGBT rights. Do you think Hilary is kind of a hypocrite for doing this?

The thing is... the subtext of this thread is entirely xenophobic, because it has this implication that one should not have any transactions of any sort with different cultures due to differences in approaches in singular issues. That's xenophobia in a nutshell. It's stereotyping people from those countries as necessarily sharing the belief in their laws (which implies that all Americans were also anti-LGBT before pro-LGBT legislation was enacting). The culture there is different. When working in international affairs, that needs to be treated with respect, if not with approval or tolerance.

It is also fixating on Middle Eastern countries of varying LGBT attitudes, making the unfair implication that the law is actually applied in those countries. Saudi Arabia is the only one with actual strict behavior, and the fact that Clinton has relationships with people there is a result of different issues.

What about China, Japan, Indonesia, a lot of Eastern European countries etc.. that the USA has relationships with? Those countries have dubious LGBT laws in place, and anti-LGBT attitudes that are far more ingrained than those in Muslim countries. Why did you not mention those in the OP? It's important to provide a mix of cultures. You're just zero'ing in on the Middle East, because there is this notion (intentional or otherwise) that Middle Eastern countries are part of the Axis of Evil or something.

Also there is this implication that Hillary is endorsing those countries when she receives donations FROM them. How does that work? The opposite holds true. You endorse an entity when you support it.

Also you are attempting to establish a one-to-one relationship between LGBT rights and interacting with these countries as if that's the only option to consider. Until very recently, Saudi Arabia was a necessary ally in the region to counter the Russian-backed Iran, prompting Hillary to interact with them on more occasion in neutral terms at worst. 

What's so bad about maintaining friendly relationships with entities you are allied with? Do you suggest pushing them away rather than trying to rub off on them for the better? Women can now drive in Saudi. How is that not positive influence?

Worst of all,, you're making this false correlation between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary herself. Counter to what the GOP says (and what Sanders is all too eager to dramatize), the Foundation is still a charity organization. Why would it be bad for that charity to receive money? 

It's odd that you think that charities refuse money when there are, as far as we know, no relevant strings attached with their expenditure. I fail to see why you're trying to paint her as a hypocrite for taking money from people, who are actually endorsing her, to spend it on charitable functions.

Treat it like a grey area. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

23 minutes ago, Kayla said:

A strong LGBT ally would send their checks back with a comment that says "Thank you for your support, but until you choose to treat your LGBT members of society with respect I can not accept this gift."

HOWEVER. Her doing that can mean rough relations between America and those nations. It's not just about her feelings, it's about the country's relationship to other nations- including Saudi Arabia.

In the Middle East, it is insulting to refuse gifts. 

The best thing to do in that situation is to use the money for the greater good.

The money went to the charitable foundation, not Hillary. There's that.

[Kayla 7,595]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

In the Middle East, it is insulting to refuse gifts. 

It's insulting to refuse gifts anywhere (yes, especially in the middle east). But honestly- if it's that insulting it'd be an even bigger message if she refused.

That being said, the rest of my post indicates I am open-minded to reasons why just refusing the gift isn't something she can or will do. There are worldwide relationships to maintain, and even though I'd love to see a candidate ditch being "proper" in favor of sending the message the United States will not work with people who abuse their citizens over sexual orientation, I also acknowledge there's a lot of trouble that can start by taking a stance against a nation in that way. 

[Kayla 7,595]

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

In the Middle East, it is insulting to refuse gifts. 

The best thing to do in that situation is to use the money for the greater good.

The money went to the charitable foundation, not Hillary. There's that.

You know how ****ing awesome it'd be if Hillary publicly posted something like

"Dear Saudi Arabia, 
Thank you for your charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation. We appreciate your support and thought you would be happy to know the contribution is being used to promote LGBT equality here in the United States, making the world a better place for people of all sexual orientation."

It's probably best I'm not a politician because I'd pull shady **** like that all the time, and do it for good purposes.  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, Kayla said:

It's insulting to refuse gifts anywhere (yes, especially in the middle east). But honestly- if it's that insulting it'd be an even bigger message if she refused.

That being said, the rest of my post indicates I am open-minded to reasons why just refusing the gift isn't something she can or will do. There are worldwide relationships to maintain, and even though I'd love to see a candidate ditch being "proper" in favor of sending the message the United States will not work with people who abuse their citizens over sexual orientation, I also acknowledge there's a lot of trouble that can start by taking a stance against a nation in that way. 

Don't you think it's a morally grey choice to take money from such people to spend it on programs to assist others?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Kayla said:

You know how ****ing awesome it'd be if Hillary publicly posted something like

"Dear Saudi Arabia, 
Thank you for your charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation. We appreciate your support and thought you would be happy to know the contribution is being used to promote LGBT equality here in the United States, making the world a better place for people of all sexual orientation."

It's probably best I'm not a politician because I'd pull shady **** like that all the time, and do it for good purposes.  

 lol

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

@Kayla Frankly I think it sets a dangerous precedent to reduce attitudes towards other nations to singular issues.

Why stop at LGBT rights?

If you take into account women's rights, children's rights, working class rights, or even human rights in general, the only nations that Hillary should ever take donations from are Canada, some parts of the USA, and some countries in Western Europe. 

Do you think this isn't a closed-off mentality regarding Western culture and dismissive of the issues regarding globalization and the confluence of progressive values with traditional cultures worldwide?

Something to think about.

[Kayla 7,595]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

@Kayla Frankly I think it sets a dangerous precedent to reduce attitudes towards other nations to singular issues.

Why stop at LGBT rights?

If you take into account women's rights, children's rights, working class rights, or even human rights in general, the only nations that Hillary should ever take donations from are Canada, some parts of the USA, and some countries in Western Europe. 

Do you think this isn't a closed-off mentality regarding Western culture and dismissive of the issues regarding globalization and the confluence of progressive values with traditional cultures worldwide?

Something to think about.

I think it's important to think about the extremes to which these issues go in those other countries. 

For example, in the US LGBT people are still suffering and facing discrimination, inequality, and violence, but they're not given "100 lashes and banishment to death by stoning." That's the difference. 

It's not about standing up against the fact that some bakeries refuse to serve cakes to a gay couple, it's about standing up against nations that put people in prison for homosexuality. 

That's not just traditional cultures- that's government-enforced violence against people for their sexual orientation. That kind of thing should not be able to be defended by and hide behind "traditional cultures." 

It IS a dangerous precedent to reduce attitudes towards other nations to singular issues- those nations are so much more than that. But when those nations are actively killing people and imprisoning them for who they love, I think we can't just shake hands and turn a blind eye.