Clinton supporting LGBT, but taking donations?

[Economy 52,861]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

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.

Im not trying to downplay the issue. I merely questioned what these numbers were from since i didnt see a link. Thats all  

[Economy 52,861]

10 minutes ago, Didymus said:

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.

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.

We dont have to pertend anything. I think most of us know Hilary isnt honest  

 

But i dont change my stance. To met tgis issue alone doesnt dictate what dealings u can and cant have and that includes donations

 

most Countries do something wrong in one way or another. U cant just cut everyone off that does something u disagree with

 

Do what the EU did. They hated Canadas terrible environemnts guts during our last Government and they worked to block imports of our oil and energy specifically but didnt cut all ties because of that alone

 

for homophobic countries, an appropriate sanction that somehow relates would be more appropriate than saying u cant accept anything from them

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

23 minutes ago, Economy said:

Im not trying to downplay the issue. I merely questioned what these numbers were from since i didnt see a link. Thats all  

You can type in the source from the OP on your facebook, it's a legit page, also just type in Clinton Foundation on Google and you can read about the donations tbh.

As Didymus said, this is nothing new, I just found this picture that represents those countries with cruel rules to the LGBTQ, I'm sure there are more and more examples.

I just don't think these countries should be encouraged to continue with their policies. Not just these LGBT policies, but any other law that is hurting some minority or human rights in total. I am not attacking Hilary, I don't even care if she is the next president or not, I don't live in the US and I can't do anything about it, but I can state my opinion and for me, Trump (even though I can't even imagine a man LIKE THAT leading US) using his own millions for his campaign is a lot better in that perspective than Hilary's foundation collecting money on ANY TERMS just so they can fund her campaign. It shows that she is literally capable of doing whatever it takes to achieve her goals, which can again be a good and a bad thing.

[Didymus 34,380]

29 minutes ago, Economy said:

Im not trying to downplay the issue. I merely questioned what these numbers were from since i didnt see a link. Thats all  

Well, not really. You questioned if countries' governments were the ones donating, which you could've easily looked up (but didn't), which is why I found your quick generalizations about the issue based on these numbers alone as if they just dropped out of the sky a bit suspicious

26 minutes ago, Economy said:

for homophobic countries, an appropriate sanction that somehow relates would be more appropriate than saying u cant accept anything from them

That's the thing though. The possibility of sanctions against governments that pay you are pretty low. That's what it's all about. You can't give appropriate sanctions because you're in debt.

[Economy 52,861]

23 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Well, not really. You questioned if countries' governments were the ones donating, which you could've easily looked up (but didn't), which is why I found your quick generalizations about the issue based on these numbers alone as if they just dropped out of the sky a bit suspicious

That's the thing though. The possibility of sanctions against governments that pay you are pretty low. That's what it's all about. You can't give appropriate sanctions because you're in debt.

I could of searched it up but i didnt know what i was looking for so it would be a lot of work. So i decided to question instead and someone else answer  

 

And what does debt have to do with it? Some Countries with a lot of debt still put on sanctions to Russia for example

 

And what u mean "your in debt"? Ill have u know, my Country has one of the very lowest debt loads in Developed world at only 31% of GDP  

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, Economy said:

I could of searched it up but i didnt know what i was looking for so it would be a lot of work. So i decided to question instead and someone else answer  

And what does debt have to do with it? Some Countries with a lot of debt still put on sanctions to Russia for example

And what u mean "your in debt"? Ill have u know, my Country has one of the very lowest debt loads in Developed world at only 31% of GDP  

I meant a debt to be paid to a country you're in economic agreements with As in: we'll give you billions for weapons, you'll back off about human rights.

[Economy 52,861]

3 hours ago, Didymus said:

I meant a debt to be paid to a country you're in economic agreements with As in: we'll give you billions for weapons, you'll back off about human rights.

Ohhhhhhh. Ok makes more sense now  

[MelbHawker 6,583]

22 hours ago, GagaMyBlood95 said:

Do you really believe these countries are giving her "donations" because they, what, love her? Support her? Support gay rights?

Because that is far from the truth, if she or anyone else is receiving donations from someone, it's because they have a motive for it, of course they have some sort of a deal and it's one thing to talk about LGBT rights and fight for them, and another thing is making deals and receiving money from someone who is not obeying  and punishing the same rights.

I'm not saying Hilary is the only one who does this, but she is definitely no better. This only proves that.

I don't think I ever said that the bolded is why I believe these countries donate money to her. I said it's comical that these countries are donating to a foundation founded by a leader who is currently supporting something they do not in LGBT people. 

I don't see the issue with her accepting these donations - she's not a villain for doing so. 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

21 hours ago, Didymus said:

It's not about accepting the money per se, it's about her (not just her but Western political powers in general) not pressuring Saudi Arabia, to take one example, about its horrid laws concerning gay (and, in general, human) rights. Accepting money from a country like that is, in the eye of the people appalled by this, equal to serving their interests behind the show they put on in public.

But it's not just that of course. The better example is arms trade with Saudi Arabia which is just absolutely disgusting. That country spends billions of dollars every year on weapons manufactured in the US. When you put all of that together, it's just clear that no matter what politicians like Obama and Hillary are claiming, they are supporting the LGBT+ community while simultaneously blocking any progress abroad, and that's just for one issue - it really counts for all of the human rights problems, and in the context of war it makes matters even worse.

Like a Belgian politician said a while back: our political leaders are telling us they want to fight Islamic terrorism, but behind our backs they're supporting it economically and by delivering more weapons to the hands of the very people we're claiming to oppose. It makes no sense. Well, it does, economically speaking, but if we really value money more than human rights, we sure have to alter our identity make-up

She should be pressuring other countries to do so - why she doesn't, I have no idea. It's not like these nations do not know what her stance is LGBT people's rights anyhow. Still, I just do not see her as a villain for accepting the money. Hillary has to look after her own people first and foremost - she's one woman. She can only do so much. If I were her, I'd steer clear of putting any sort of pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia - it's not an area of the world I'd do more to involve myself or my country with. That's me though. 

The Arms trade between America and countries like SA will never cease. It's too profitable and sadly, there'll always be demand for Arms in countries that are involved in war, conflict etc. World's a horrible place. We're all blind to so much.. the more it's exposed the more of a joke politics becomes. Countries essentially fund their own wars and continue them because it profits. It's a sad joke. The innocent suffer. Humans value human rights over money. Politicians don't. 

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

20 minutes ago, MelbHawker said:

I don't think I ever said that the bolded is why I believe these countries donate money to her. I said it's comical that these countries are donating to a foundation founded by a leader who is currently supporting something they do not in LGBT people. 

I don't see the issue with her accepting these donations - she's not a villain for doing so. 

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 didn't start this thread because I wanted to discuss if Hilary is a criminal, but because of other issues and corruption and the power that some people have and how they use it. Only in this case, it involves the Hilary Foundation yes.

[holy scheisse 22,936]

blue no matter who

 

until bernie arrives in green

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

23 hours ago, Economy said:

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

When you have most politicians mourning the loss of the victims, you'd think that they'd actually care to improve the quality of life for that group. Right now it's all for show until something is done. LGBTQ are killed all the time and yet now it's a problem?

[Didymus 34,380]

1 hour ago, MelbHawker said:

Still, I just do not see her as a villain for accepting the money.

Agreed that Hillary's no villain (any more than the others) here, but it is connected to a bigger problem though imo. The gun trade and the support for the Foundation is just the same thing differing only in degree, but not in kind to me, I guess

[Economy 52,861]

3 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

When you have most politicians mourning the loss of the victims, you'd think that they'd actually care to improve the quality of life for that group. Right now it's all for show until something is done. LGBTQ are killed all the time and yet now it's a problem?

Thats society in general tho not just politicians. People always make a bigger deal when something happens that makes news. 

 

The fact that all LGBT were killed in a single hour rather than 49 in different areas of the US in a span of say a week suddenly makes ot news worthy

 

But then again, i never said humanity and society made any sense...

 

Politicians are people too and their perceptions of things and what they give importance to are also flawed

 

Also the people are a bit to blame too. If politicians dont do anything for show, the people never elect them, and they know that. So they have to.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Thats society in general tho not just politicians. People always make a bigger deal when something happens that makes news. 

 

The fact that all LGBT were killed in a single hour rather than 49 in different areas of the US in a span of say a week suddenly makes ot news worthy

 

But then again, i never said humanity and society made any sense...

 

Politicians are people too and their perceptions of things and what they give importance to are also flawed

 

Also the people are a bit to blame too. If politicians dont do anything for show, the people never elect them, and they know that. So they have to.

I'm just pointing out how wrong it is.