Clinton supporting LGBT, but taking donations?

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, Shipper said:

Those countries gave her money because they believe that Hilary is the lesser of two evils.

Hilary > Trump

This election and those numbers have nothing to do with each other. Those countries have been donating to the Clinton Foundation for years.

[Shipper 13,114]

Just now, Didymus said:

This election and those numbers have nothing to do with each other. Those countries have been donating to the Clinton Foundation for years.

My bad didnt read it. 

Well I'm sure they want something from Hilary most especially now she's running for President. 

Everybody has a motive and they must be happy someone they have been supporting could become the POTUS.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

I don't like her for her policies in the middle east or on war in general at ALL firstly  

But she will still do good on her support of LGBTQ+ people in America. Maybe that's selfish in the big picture, but I can't honestly say that I believe Bernie would be able to do much more for people in those countries than Hillary could. He might take the moral high ground and not take money from them, which is important in its own light, but I don't think at the end of the day either of them would immediately have the clout to actually like, significantly change the culture and laws in places like that. I mean, there are plenty of places in the world with state-sanctioned homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. (including America ) and they've existed for a long time.
Maybe I'm just not versed in foreign affairs and the way countries can impact policy and culture in other countries actively, but the way I see it any kind of sanction, imperative, etc. that could be imposed by either our government or boards on international human rights watches, etc. would not be able to weaken the culture itself even if it managed to influence the laws in a meaningful way.
I don't honestly have a solution. While I think taking money from those places and then campaigning against things that they criminalize is all kinds of shady politics, its very common in this day and age and I don't think Hillary Clinton is any more or less culpable than her peers for this.

23 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

David Duke endorses Trump: "HE'S A RACIST AND SO IS TRUMP!!!11!!1111"

Saudi Arabia donates millions to Hillary/Clinton Campaign by proxy: "She doesn't owe them anything this means nothing"

lolol

To be fair, Trump isn't objectively guilty by association or anything just because racists, the KKK, white supremacists, xenophobes etc. endorse him; it only means that his platform and beliefs line up with theirs. From there, you can form your own opinion.

People in foreign countries donating to Clinton and the Clinton Foundation doesn't necessarily mean they agree with her domestic policies, as this graphic actually directly demonstrates; they aren't putting money into her foundation for her to use it to oppress LGBT people or anything, but white supremacists and racists ARE buying into Trump because his speech incites divisiveness and racism and protect white men over others, which are things that they support. They aren't entirely analogous situations. As for why they donate to the Clintons, it's a bit vague though you could make some obvious guesses about corruption, buying politicians, foreign policy, etc. that while not provable at all, might make some people fully accept them as truth.

[Economy 53,144]

Yeah but so many Countries and individuals will do things u dont agree with. Why do we have to single out homosexuality and that 1 thing dictates what dealings u cant or cant have with them? 

 

Seconly, i dont think this was even the Country itself that donated was it? I think it came from within those Nations. Theres no way to know what the personal opinions of those donnors were. And if they support a democrat, they are probably more liberal than most in their culture

 

So I think getting upset at her for taking donations from a source from within a Nation that doesnt accept homosexuality to he completely rediculous and narrow minded and failing to look at the bigger picture!!!!!  

[Gagadonna 10,801]

Gags. Who the **** are you supporting

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

Seconly, i dont think this was even the Country itself that donated was it?

It was.

[Economy 53,144]

8 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

I mean, if Hillary actually meant what she said, or any politician for that matter, there would be 100% protections for LGBTQ, gender identity, etc in this country. It shouldn't be a question. Why that isn't being introduced in government right this moment? Because everything is for show. 

Listen we dont have dictators anymore we have a complex democracy government where every bill and law is subject to debate and voting and vetos and failure to being passed in government etc

 

No President or Prime Minister ever has total control. Obama has been advocating for gun control for years and he just cant

 

People forget that. It doesnt mean its just for show. People forget things are not as simple as snapping fingers and making it happen.

 

Democracy has many advantages over monarchy, facism, dictatorship etc... But one down side is that everything is always super slow to happen because no 1 individual is calling the shots

[Poot 719]

Did the country give the money or residents of the country  

[FlopSlurper 34,336]

1 minute ago, Poot said:

Did the country give the money or residents of the country  

I believe the country, since in my country's case (Oman) I don't think anyone gives a rotten **** about American politics, let alone donating

[Economy 53,144]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

It was.

U sure? All i see is a chart without a link. It doesnt specify if it was the Government, institutions from within, or totals of everything

 

but even if it was the government itself, i still stand by my 1st argument. U cant just cut off all dealings with every Country that does something against your values

 

In China freedom (despite recent improvements) is still under oppression

My Country Canada (especially until recent bew Government) was super wrekless with environmental policies to the point where the EU even proposed a ban on Canadian Oil due to our destructive practices on environment

 

Would u cut off these countries too?

 

LGBT alone cannot be what dictates political decisions nor is it a readon alone in my mind to tirn down funds

 

In sure theres Americans thenselves who are homophobic that donated to her fund. Screen each donator as well?

 

[Economy 53,144]

5 minutes ago, FlopSlurper said:

I believe the country, since in my country's case (Oman) I don't think anyone gives a rotten **** about American politics, let alone donating

But u could have Corporations that benefit from 1 politician over the other

 

besides, these numbers are actually very small, super tiny, when u look at Countries and global economy. If 0.1% of a Countries population gave a dam and donated, u could easily get these numbers no problem.

 

im not convinced this chart is showing Government donations themselves u less i see link specifying that

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

U sure? All i see is a chart without a link. It doesnt specify if it was the Government, institutions from within, or totals of everything

Well, I mean we've known about their donations for years This is old news, the chart is just a summary of what we know, which has been reported with perfectly good sources (incl. a full list of donors the Clintons provided themselves at one point). So if you want to find them, you will in no time.

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

In sure theres Americans thenselves who are homophobic that donated to her fund. Screen each donator as well?

That might be a good point in theory, but those random donors can't pressure the American government into doing what they want. Governments that supply a massive source of income can. That's the difference.

I don't disagree with your stance I guess, but it doesn't make it less problematic. Money speaks louder than morals, clearly, but then why do we have to pretend politicians like Hillary are really fighting the good fight? Why can't be just be honest then and agree that we're systematically feeding corruption, wars, terrorism, and a lack of human rights? Why do we have to pretend to represent something else, that's my question.

[FlopSlurper 34,336]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

But u could have Corporations that benefit from 1 politician over the other

 

besides, these numbers are actually very small, super tiny, when u look at Countries and global economy. If 0.1% of a Countries population gave a dam and donated, u could easily get these numbers no problem.

 

im not convinced this chart is showing Government donations themselves u less i see link specifying that

But I know the people of my country very well and I assure you that these are governmental donations, the sultanate of Oman has very strong relations with the US and since Hillary has been very active within the government of the US even before running for precedency, the Sultan probably funded her. 

[Didymus 34,380]

8 minutes ago, Economy said:

besides, these numbers are actually very small, super tiny, when u look at Countries and global economy.

Well of course but this is just a super small percentage of the money flowing in from these countries The total amount is staggering, esp. in the context of arms trade.

Not sure why you're so desperately trying to downplay the issue. Quite suspicious if I may say so.

[Didymus 34,380]

7 minutes ago, FlopSlurper said:

But I know the people of my country very well and I assure you that these are governmental donations

They are. We know exactly who donated to the foundation from official sources and we know it's the Saudi Arabian government among others.

Edit: Oh, I misread. Not 100% sure about Oman, but I can't imagine there being residents donating to the ****ing Clinton Foundation on that scale lol. I'll look it up anyway.