-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
E-Mails by Clinton Aides Show State-Foundation Links
- Thread starter Desty
- Start date
- Status
DragonSworne
Banned
Besides, are people not allowed to meet with ambassadors?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Boy if this email server was specifically designed to avoid FOIA, and not to use modern tech in accessing shit, then she did a really, really bad job trying to delete those emails so none of this could have come up.
I imagine she would have, you know, actually destroying the servers and preventing the majority of data from being recovered instead of putting them in storage.
I'm not so sure, I feel like the democratic party has had a few wake up calls this go around and are probably counting their blessings that trump came out on top
DragonSworne
Banned
yeah im confused, people do this sort of thing all the time based on what ever connection or person they know, now if they directly paid their way to it then maybe its something.
GreatestHits
Member
No one had confidence in Bernie to beat Trump. It was a miracle he got as far as he did after stigmatizing himself as a socialist. He was never the Dem's primary, we all know this. If there were a strong and more moderate republican candidate, Hillary would be in a lot of trouble.
old manatee
Banned
I did.
plagiarize
Banned
I love how you took a word you'd heard used in connection to Clinton and just threw it out there. Who is Clinton an obvious plant or stooge for? Remember, it has to be *obvious* which third party's interests she is operating for.
Clinton fucked up with her e-mail server and admitted fault. This latest 'scandal' is next to nothing, and only tangentially related to anything she herself did. This organization that has spent *decades* trying to prove she is corrupt. This is the best they have been able to come up with.
Think about that.
How much money has been spent trying to hold her at fault for Benghazi? Yet every time they have a new inquiry she is found not at fault. Why are people still spending tax payer's dollars to try and pin that on her?
I'm sure Clinton did some bad stuff. But given the magnitude of efforts to try and discredit her seem to only ever come back with tenuous or vague criticisms, I don't think it's a given that she's corrupt. Tell me a politician that would come away squeaky clean with that level of scrutiny. She's been subject to more than even Obama.
GreatestHits
Member
Guess I should clarify. None of the super-delegates did or had vested interests in it. I figured either Bernie or Hillary would take Trump
Do you think people will stop talking about this if she becomes president?
It will only get worse when she is in office.
TheRagnCajun
Member
So it was an employee of the Clinton foundation inquiring about a job for an associate, not a donor. That's not necessarily what I would consider an unethical exchange of favours.
No it won't, it'll be the same slow drip drip drip of non-stories connected to at best ambiguously worded emails as Clinton foes poop all over themselves trying to find some kind of "smoking gun".
The same few people will get riled up about nothing, and the rest of us will be looking forward to Spring.
And? Being investigated isn't the same thing as actually doing something wrong. HRC has been investigated over and over. Literally millions of dollars have been wasted trying to pin anything on her and the best I've seen is her being irresponsible with emails. Which many other older politicians have done as well.
same. he was actually the perfect guy to combat trump and his bullshit. hillary will do well also, because trump is so in over his head it's not funny, but the perceived difference in integrity between bernie and hillary/trump is huge. plus bernie's platform resonates with some of trump's base without the toxicity and prejudice.
The same people who cling to this email thing like its something bigger than it is are the same people voting for trump (or Jill stein) so I'm sure to them it will never go away because they don't want it to go away. Then there are rational people who want the facts and make up their mind and that's it.
I'd say the people wanting this to not go away have bigger things to worry about but that's just me.
Id vote Bernie over Hillary that's for sure however Bernie would have been a worse candidate. He's got a lot of socialist skeletons in his closet and is extremely liberal. Probably would have galvanized the right even more than HRC and lost a lot of the central voters. You didn't see republicans really go after him because he was the candidate they wanted to run against. There are still a lot of people that Bernie scared to death.
andythinkpad
Member
Well we know Hillary is a mouthpiece for the money. It's just too bad America's democratic system give us 2 rotten apples to vote on.
If we have a parliamentarian system, we can vote for the local DEM and let them pick a worthy head of state.
If we have a parliamentarian system, we can vote for the local DEM and let them pick a worthy head of state.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yea, it's too bad people voted for who they wanted to represent them.
Citation needed.
plagiarize
Banned
Can't you hear the evidence echoing around this chamber?
boiled goose
good with gravy
A bit offtopic but this is reductionist. Money in the system affects who is chosen before the vote even starts, affects visibility of different candidates, and also affects the positions these candidates are required to hold.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Don't appeal to minorities, don't win the Dem primary. We were able to predict primary results pretty much entirely based on demographics.
Progressives need to realize this or they aren't going anywhere.
boiled goose
good with gravy
??? How is that relevant to my post? I deliberately kept things very general.
Both his her comment and your response are a bit too simplistic.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
So basically, Hillary Clinton is a senior career politician?
plagiarize
Banned
Are you telling me that Jill Stein needs to have been elected to a position in government where she represented more than one person from a racial minority?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Because Bernie losing had jack to do with how well known Hillary was, how the media treated Bernie or other such nonsense excuses "progressives" used to hand wave away the simple fact they don't appeal to minorities.
Sure, except Bernie outspent Hillary by a ton in states he ended up losing anyways.
If money was the ultimate decider, Sanders would have easily won just based on money spent. I think Clinton barely spent any money at all and despite Sanders raising a ton of funds, he ended up short changed by the end because of how much he was spending.
A majority of people chose Clinton over Sanders for reasons that aren't nefarious. I chose Clinton (and voted for her, even though my state went to Sanders) because her plans were much more realistic for the country instead of just simplistic "money is bad get it out of politics" messages.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Again, why are you bringing up Bernie and progressives??? Lacking reading comprehension and can't have an actual discussion without going to the same talking point. Robot Rubio here.
My point was general.
But since you want to go there... you don't think Hillary's fundraised money helped her? Come on son. Let's get real here. Did I say that money in politics is the only reason for every outcome ever? No. It skews things enough to lead to a measurable difference in aggregate
That strong moderate Republican would need to be drastically different from their party.
The right has been using the words Clinton and corruption in the same sentence for over 20 years now.
And yet, Jeb Bush was not nominated.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Cult of Personality
People are hell bent with blind devotion on candidates before they prove themselves. Very dangerous, tbh.
But they'd choose Hillary. Who do you think the superdelegates were representing?
"Totally corrupt". Receipts. Please.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Omg here we go again.
Let's keep things general.
Money helps you win elections. It's a fact. 95 percent of the time the candidate with more money wins.
Now, this doesn't apply to general elections as much as others, because there is enough free media. See Trump. It still matters a ton. If it didn't... people wouldn't fundraise.
The problem is not only skewing elections, but positions themselves. Let's go with an Easy example. Does Hillary get a lot of money from the NRA? Hmm probably not. I wonder why.
It doesn't matter if politicians happen to have a position that is favored by donors or adopt that position to get more money. In either case donor money disproportionately skews the process towards their approved policies.
This last point is a FACT. see Princeton study on legislation vs constituent opinion.
See above..
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
You keep freaking out when people mention Bernie and keep saying, I'm talking generally when the only example that is up for discussion is Bernie v. Hillary. It's rather silly to be quite honest.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Omg. I did not bring that example up! The only reason I discussed it at all was because it was brought up twice in a row!
I don't want to talk about Hillary v Bernie. It's over and pointless at this point.
Let's get back on topic.
Is it a problem that Clinton Foundation mega donors seem (seem!) To have special access to state Department resources?
Don't want to make it about Hillary specifically (i dont think it is), then let's keep the discussion general. This is a systemic problem.
Then let's not bring it up!
What part of the above addresses "Money in the system affects who is chosen before the vote even starts, affects visibility of different candidates"?
Money in the system didn't choose Trump as the nominee before the vote started. Money in the system didn't impede Bernie's visibility as a candidate.
I'm not arguing against the influence of money in politics, but I disagree that it decided who our two nominees were before the primary started. Bernie lost his primary because his minority outreach was pitiful, not because he was outspent or the media didn't focus on him (if anything, he owes a lot to the media for his momentum narrative); Trump won his primary not because of the political money machine but in spite of it.
Ok, so back on topic: they don't seem to have special access since nothing apparently came of this meeting request.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Money buys access, news at 11.
Does it bother me, sure, is it going away, no. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Did you just ignore the part where I specifically explain why it matters less in thr general?
Do you understand that "skewing" doesn't mean winning every single time? The effect is measured in aggregate. More money wins 95 percent of the time on average.
Why is this so hard?
Back to the primary because you keep bringing it up. There are many reasons behind the outcome. Money played a part. That's it.
wumster3000
Member
Really? I don't think so at all. I think this is an easy and harsh lesson to learn. Don't send emails like you did. Where Donald Trump is a complete idiot. He has no clue about foreign policy, about how to treat people and what it takes to run a country. I would rather have someone who's been in the political game for most of their life and understands current events, than someone who treats the globe like a reality show. Trump has no clue, that much is fact.
spiderman123
Member
LOL
Orniletter
Banned
The sheer amount of plain ignorance on display when some are trying to regurgitate the same empty phrases...
We are literally right of the heels of Clinton proposing gigantic investments into infrastructure to create 10 Million jobs to strenghthen the american middle class....
...after Trump's "make billionairs even richer" speech.
People just want to hate her and are scraping the bottom of the barrel over and over again to find the tiniest bits to latch onto.
Yes, but it's not a problem unique to Clinton. Do you think mega donors do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Every single politician has a big donor or corporation backing them to a point and you're kidding yourself if you think that kind of thing doesn't happen.
This email has a name blocked out, isn't specific in what exactly it's asking for, and is the definition of itsnothing.gif
...I'm not talking about the general!
You seem to have lost track of the conversation. balladofwindfishes' point was about who the voters elected to represent them in the primary, particularly Hillary, who was able to appeal to minority voters in a way Bernie couldn't. That's what you responded to with your "Money in the system affects who is chosen before the vote even starts, affects visibility of different candidates" point.
This train of thought here has been about the primary, and your erroneous suggestion that money in the system is the reason why a majority of voters nominated Trump and Hillary for president.
No kidding.
(And I don't keep "bringing it up." That's what was being talked about in the first place.)
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Yep. This is honestly such a non-story, unless you already have a hate boner for Hillary Clinton. $$ buys access, access buys influence, and things magically happen. I'm shocked, utterly shocked!
Again, citation needed.
If you look at the response to the infamous "oligarchy" study, where the monied and middle classes disagree over policy it's actually a toss up over who wins. 50-50.
Not to mention that "corrupt" Hillary Clinton with her ties to Wall Street (which are an inevitable part of being a representative of New York in Congress) has a pretty strong record of voting for financial regulation as a Senator. I guess the money wasn't enough.
If the republicans would have picked an electable candidate, then Hillary would have no chance.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
It isn't what she needs no doubt and it would have been all over the news if Trump could shut his mouth for more than an hour. Will that happen, hell no, he has to call Fox news, Tweet, hold a press conference, do w/e.
Again though, this is the way of the world in business and politics at all levels. It really isn't an issue that is new.
Good thing they don't have an electable candidate, and I doubt that.
- Status