-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
24 Apr 2015, 1:02 pm
bbauska wrote:I know it is more than the book. I am just wondering why our friends on the left can only talk about the fault of Republicans, but at mute when it comes to the faults of the Democrats. It is a simple question:
If there is evidence of Quid Pro Quo, does that eliminate her from consideration as a presidential contender in your opinion?
If Jeb is found to be doing the same thing... He is dead to me.
Christie? Same thing.
Rand, Ben, Marco... Any of them. Eliminated from contention in my opinion.
It is easy... Just say what your opinion is concerning the scandal issues of Mrs. Clinton.
I think I have said this, but I'll say it again: if we have to have a Democrat in the White House, it ought not be Clinton. What they have done with the CGI is nothing less than setting up a (maybe) legal way to squeeze money out of governments and corporations so they could enrich themselves. The CGI spent a ton on transportation and, from what I understand, their overhead could consume as much as 85%--meaning only 15% went to the needy.
She better be able to prove this is all false.
If any of it is true and she can get elected . . . this country is more pathetic than I'd ever imagined.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
24 Apr 2015, 1:34 pm
It has the potential to be a huge problem politically, and potentially even legally. Why aren't dems lining up to get in the race? It's really puzzling.
-
- bbauska
- Administrator
-
- Posts: 7463
- Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm
24 Apr 2015, 2:02 pm
geojanes wrote:It has the potential to be a huge problem politically, and potentially even legally. Why aren't dems lining up to get in the race? It's really puzzling.
GeoJanes,
I consider you left/moderate. Would Clinton be someone you could not vote for if these allegations are found to be true?
Yes, it is puzzling that there are not others...
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
24 Apr 2015, 2:03 pm
geojanes wrote:It has the potential to be a huge problem politically, and potentially even legally. Why aren't dems lining up to get in the race? It's really puzzling.
I am very concerned.
Again, if she can explain it away, great. However, there are so many patches of smoke, it's getting difficult to understand how.
I don't regard O'Malley as a "real candidate."
Maybe other Democrats are waiting for either a "frog-march" (which won't happen) or her to drop out (which won't happen, barring a life-threatening illness)?
There aren't a ton of likely candidates, but it seems to me there have to be some folks at least stretching in the bullpen.
I guess they could try Joe Biden . . .
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
24 Apr 2015, 2:29 pm
Yes, Brad, if it's proven that Hillary Clinton was involved in approving the sale of uranium mines to Russia to benefit a Canadian donor to the Foundation then I would not support Clinton. But I doubt we're going to get such proof.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
24 Apr 2015, 3:07 pm
freeman3 wrote:Yes, Brad, if it's proven that Hillary Clinton was involved in approving the sale of uranium mines to Russia to benefit a Canadian donor to the Foundation then I would not support Clinton. But I doubt we're going to get such proof.
I'm not suggesting that should be THE standard. Are you genuinely saying that short of an (erased) email or some smoking gun, no amount of "strange coincidences" will convince you she should not be President?
If the shoe was (or is) on the other foot, I could not support a GOP candidate.
I remember a large outcry about Cheney and Halliburton. There is far more here than there was there. We actually have a money trail. It doesn't establish "guilt," but is that the standard you really want?
Again, if she has explanations for all of these items, fine. Game on. However, if not, I think the Dems should get a candidate unsullied by all of this quid pro quo-ish stuff.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Apr 2015, 3:13 pm
JimHackerMP wrote:The senior senator from Vermont is welcome to say he is an "independent"; he caucuses, I do believe, with the Democrats which, at the end of the day, amounts to almost the same thing. He can call himself the New Wafd Party if he likes and it wouldn't be any more than simply a label to make him look independent.
Patrick Leahy is the senior Senator from Vermont, having been given a seventh term to Sanders' two.
Yes, Sanders caucuses with the Democrats - that is because he is to the left of them, and in order to be able to get committee allocations, independents have to caucus with someone. He has opposed Democrats in his elections in the past (although recently they have not stood against him, or he has won the nomination and then declined it).
What he is not part of is the Democrat electoral machine. Of course, if he seeks the nomination for President, then he would be moving into it.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Apr 2015, 3:32 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:Why does Chelsea get higher speaking fees than former Presidents and VP's, not to mention Mitt? Does she really have so much wisdom to pass along? Was her speech on diarrhea such a stem-winder that it demanded a $75K fee?
I'm pretty sure that the speaker circuit is a fairly free market. No-one is forced to pay someone to speak if they don't want to, and if Chelsea Clinton's fees are too high, she won't get the gigs. But she does, which suggests the market does not consider her overpriced.
But it's also pretty irrelevant to the charges being made against Hillary.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Apr 2015, 3:35 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:freeman3 wrote:. . . reining in police brutality,
Um, yeah. The main "difference" here is that most Republicans wait to hear the facts.
yeah, right.
So a few posts later, you are passing on the allegations (so far unproven) that Hillary sold your Uranium to the Russians...
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
24 Apr 2015, 3:51 pm
We're talking about the only Democratic candidate who has a chance at winning in 2016. As yet, there is no proof that she was involved allowing the deal to go through. I sort of doubt she would have been that foolish. What I am looking is for proof that rises to more probably than not that she did something wrong. Beyond Clinton's involvement here, I am astonished that we would let Russia control substantial uranium mines in the US. I feel like everyone from the President to the Congress dropped the ball there. What the heck...
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Apr 2015, 4:03 pm
freeman3 wrote:Yes, Brad, if it's proven that Hillary Clinton was involved in approving the sale of uranium mines to Russia to benefit a Canadian donor to the Foundation then I would not support Clinton. But I doubt we're going to get such proof.
Probably not. And we know from above that "most Republicans wait to hear the facts", so until then I expect this to die away and we won't hear much from Republican politicians or our staunch Republican fans on Redscape...
One question. When Uranium One bought US mines in 2008, who signed that off?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
24 Apr 2015, 5:51 pm
danivon wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:Why does Chelsea get higher speaking fees than former Presidents and VP's, not to mention Mitt? Does she really have so much wisdom to pass along? Was her speech on diarrhea such a stem-winder that it demanded a $75K fee?
I'm pretty sure that the speaker circuit is a fairly free market. No-one is forced to pay someone to speak if they don't want to, and if Chelsea Clinton's fees are too high, she won't get the gigs. But she does, which suggests the market does not consider her overpriced.
Right, unless . . . she's the key to getting access to the (then) current Secretary of State and the future President.
But it's also pretty irrelevant to the charges being made against Hillary.
No, because all of the charges surround CGI and the funneling of money to the Clinton
s.
For a moment, suppose it's true. It's a pretty sweet scam. Bill and Chelsea rake in the bucks, more gets pushed through CGI (from which they get a cut) and it's all done under the umbrella of "charity."
Further, it's not really a scam. Suddenly, Putin has access to uranium (some of which goes to Iran). Others get influence and connections they would not have had.
Oh, and there's no way to prove it. The email trail was on Hillary's server.
Still, the press is actually on the scent now. I think we shall see how many "coincidental" gifts there are.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
25 Apr 2015, 9:15 am
Fate
Doctor Fate wrote:
Why does Chelsea get higher speaking fees than former Presidents and VP's, not to mention Mitt? Does she really have so much wisdom to pass along? Was her speech on diarrhea such a stem-winder that it demanded a $75K fee?
She's more interesting?
The work the Clinton Foundation is doing is more interesting?
That the Clintons, including Chelsea, have done an impressive job of creating an alliance of interested parties. Many wealthy people who want to effect change in the same ways the Clinton's do? And apparently Chelsea is actually very involved in directing the work of the foundation, and in outreach.
She's a pretty good presenter. I remember the disappointment of Democrats when Caroline Kennedy turned out to have no ability for presentation . So much for charisma being passed down...
On the other hand, this young lady has a lot of her father and mother in her...
Here; Fate. So you don't have to pay to see Chelsea. (she quotes Teddy Roosevelt!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KINIDSGxKfk
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
25 Apr 2015, 9:41 am
rickyp wrote:Fate
Doctor Fate wrote:
Why does Chelsea get higher speaking fees than former Presidents and VP's, not to mention Mitt? Does she really have so much wisdom to pass along? Was her speech on diarrhea such a stem-winder that it demanded a $75K fee?
She's more interesting?
Uh-huh.
Try to prove that.
The work the Clinton Foundation is doing is more interesting?
Interesting is a word.
Was it "interesting" that a company new to the mining business won a mining contract in Haiti after the earthquake--and Bill was instrumental in deciding how Haiti would be "rebuilt?" Was it "interesting" that after the novice company got the contract Hillary's brother was added to the board of the company? A man with no mining experience?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.htmlThat the Clintons, including Chelsea, have done an impressive job of creating an alliance of interested parties. Many wealthy people who want to effect change in the same ways the Clinton's do? And apparently Chelsea is actually very involved in directing the work of the foundation, and in outreach.
The number of "interesting" coincidences just keeps growing.
It's pathetic that the Dems will defend her no matter what.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
25 Apr 2015, 2:26 pm
So it turns out that the book, from which the New York Times quoted and which Fate quoted was written by Peter Schweizer.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/peter ... er-shirleyAs a political communications expert, Schweizer's notable clients include Sarah Palin, who he advised on foreign policy.[10]
NBC and ABC are reporting all kind of problems with the veracity of many of the claims in the book.
and this
ThinkProgress details several of Schweizer's claims, and highlights one major error already found in the book. According to the site, Schweizer at one point uses a press release to bolster one of his many speculative claims, citing it to suggest there may have been a link between a private company that was paying Bill Clinton for speeches (and which supposedly issued the press release) and a State Department report released when Hillary Clinton was secretary. However, ThinkProgress notes, the press release Schweizer cites was revealed as a hoax back in 2013.
This apparently sloppy sourcing from Schweizer is nothing new. As Media Matters extensively documented, Schweizer's career as a Republican activist and researcher is riddled with errors, retractions, and investigations that find his facts "do not check out" and his sources "do not exist." Our analysis found at least 10 separate incidents in which journalists called out Schweizer for his botched reporting.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21 ... not/203361
