Another convenience Friday afternoon, pre-holiday document dump of damaging Clinton data.
@ 11 months ago
Meredith, Des Moines, IA
@ 11 months ago
Sayville, NY, USA
Nixon was vilified for much less
@ 11 months ago
Naperville, IL, USA
@ 11 months ago
Middleburg Heights, OH, USA
How anyone can think she'd be a good President is really, truly amazing
Villa Park, IL, USA
give me a break Drew. the complicity with corruption should bother everyone
@ 11 months ago
Yorkville, New York, NY
Overland Park, KS, USA
what the hell does that even mean?
isnt that the phrase that the Clinton camp was pitching to journalists to smear her opponent's supporters?
kinda like Obama boys
hillary clinton should not be rewarded with votes for her conduct. just because she is running against a garbage fire does not mean shes a good choice for president.
@ 11 months ago
Nah, I agree. Just trollin.
Lol at the guy not trying to be a white knight but probably is.
The messed up thing is that Hillary could very easily wind up with what seems to be a mandate but is really just anti-Trump. But to her it'll definitely be a mandate, and a reward for doing things the Hillary way.
So we'll be seeing even more brazen stuff under her. And of course this'll set up even more screwed up precedent for next presidents, Republican or Democrat.
I think there is a point to be made here in that, in all fairness, things get reported in the worst possible light when it's Hillary. Apparently Colin Powell did similar stuff with regard to his charitable org, but no negative reports. Even during
@ 11 months ago
Lakeland, MN 55043, USA
the time there was POTUS buzz around Powell, this activity was not reported in a negative way.
let's admit at least that the media views Hillary with an inherent suspicion that isn't consistent with other people similarly situated.
I think that is true. I think the media is quite unfair to Hillary in that way and she suffers for it, with higher negatives than she may deserve.
that being said, the private email server thing was the end of my support for her. All this other
crap is just that...a bunch of nothing or near nothing.
I'm pretty much on board with Gary Johnson. Not ideal in my mind philosophically, but the guy is reasonable and he was a governor so he at least understands the gist of the job.
He'd do well with foreign relations I think. The more extreme libertarian ideas won't fly with Congress, but on foreign relations he would hold real power and I see him being liked globally...eventually.
I think he would nominate justices that hew to the conservative, but I'm ok with that...what I'd like to avoid is another Scalia (ie far right bully asshat). Roberts is conservative but he is a reasoned man and I often am swayed by his logic, at
least in part. Conservative is not a bad thing for a SCOTUS justice...it tends to preserve the status quo. Upending that is not to be taken lightly: changing the law in an instant can be wrenching.
Johnson and the veto power: socially liberal, fiscally conservative agenda fits well overall with regard to POTUS being the brakes on legislation.
Foreign relations power, appointment power, veto power. check check check.
If he made a pledge to fill his cabinet with a mixture of R and D, con and lib types, I might start donating money and time to his campaign.
He already pledged not to smoke pot in the white house. how hard can the rest be?
Of course there is the danger that if he weren't stoned he'd be a total asshat. It's his x factor.
To predict how he might build his cabinet look no further than his running mate Bill Weld. Bill also has a track record of reasoned decisions that have been based on the considerations of those be governed and not solely his own
yeah both candidates are experienced, reasonable men. Boring old white guys, but diversity isn't an issue for me when it comes to POTUS candidates. Obama as a biracial candidate was an incidental side benefit but not central to any decision for me.
Similarly, the fact that Hillary is a woman (yes as far as we know) doesn't factor into it unless I'm supporting her already, in which case voting for a woman is a fine thing for its own sake too.
So I'm ok with voting for a couple old white dudes. Anyway I am hoping for a groundswell of support for the ticket and am willing to do something to raise awareness. I just haven't decided what yet.
I gave a small chunk of money to Obama and now anyone can search without knowing my name and find out that I donated, in what amount, to whom, and that I gave more than anyone in my neighborhood by a long shot.
That's scary. I'll avoid that.
potus buzz is one thing, but if Powell actually ran it would likely have come up.
Clear Lake, IA 50428, USA
Doc, Powell didn't do the same thing at all, that's some Hillary booster cóck and bull. Not to mention exactly what skål said.
Although you made a good case for Gary, I guess I'll vote for him, not that'll make a difference.
just tell the pollsters that if they ever call you. if enough people do that, he'll get in the debates.
However, you said Congress wouldn't oblige the very very libertarian ideas, wouldn't they not even have to, considering how much regulatory power the executive agencies have? Couldn't a libertarian president scale that whole enterprise back?
Couldn't a president just disband those agencies altogether?
most agencies are empowered by a delegation of Congress' powers, Drew, not Executive delegation.
the thing with the clinton foundation is that for the amount of money it brings it it does very little, its like a personification of criticism of democratic economic policy.
and the clintons donated money to the clinton foundation and called it charity, its a farce so absurd i wouldnt vote for her because i respect myself too damn much.
and what the #### is "if hillary is elected president we will stop accepting foreign money." fuuuuuuuuuuuck youuuuuuuuuuuu.
on that note, jerry fallwell sr must be very happy that Phyllis Schlafly is joining him in hell to relieve him of sucking demon #### for a couple of days.
What's wrong with the Clinton foundation? I've checked several independent charity rating sites. They all give the foundation their highest rating. Am I missing something?
@ 11 months ago
Yellow Springs, OH 45387, USA
As with many things, JC. There's a lot of overlap with the things the Clintons do.
While this would only affect only one of the more popular charity rating sites you likely looked at, it turns out Charity Navigator was part of the Clinton Global Initiative from 2012-2014.
The foundation itself does good work. Mostly. The Clinton Health Access initiative has done great things for AIDS/HIV abroad.
Their involvement in Haiti was a disaster.
More concerning to me, however, is the numerous occasions where fundraising speeches/large donations were in close temporal proximity to State Department action benefiting those donors.
Or unqualified donors getting appointments on advisory boards with top secret clearance.
That was umm an unfortunate accident, paperwork mishap or something not sure what happened there, anyway definitely won't happen again. The Clintons take this kinda criticism quite seriously
The mob is always a generous benefactor to their community.
Ok. That one looks a little sketchy. I wonder why the guy would want to be on the panel in the first place. Weird.
He was a stock trader. Inside info?
That seems unlikely. Maybe if he were on a panel that advised on agriculture, manufacturing, or energy supply. Maybe he just had visions of grandeur. Or possibly it just came with a good paycheck.
Doubtful it was the paycheck. They guy did pretty well outside of govt...
power is more important than paychecks
JC's willingness to give benefit of the doubt seems to generally operate along partisan lines.
Drew,, You could say the same thing about the investigstions. One or two Benghazi panels would seem justified. Maybe a couple of email inquiries. Possibly look into the workings of the foundation. No problem. But at some point it becomes ridiculous.
I doubt there is anyone in govt who could survive that kind of scrutiny. The Trump charity making an illegal campaign contribution hardly raised an eyebrow. Then the AG conveniently drops the case against Trump? Where's the outrage?
Shouldn't somebody subpoena the last ten years of the charity's spending records. That would be the action taken against Clinton.
kudos to you jc for taking this position in must feel similar to how the defense attorney for dahmer felt
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137, USA
I do think it's true that anything regarding the Clintons is viewed through a lens of suspicion to an extent not experienced by anyone else in government, including POTUS.
Not as much a position as an observation. I said long ago that the republicans would over play their hand on this. Now, when an email story breaks, most people just thumb past it thinking it's old news. And for the most part, they are right.
Then if there is nothing to e.g. the outcome of a Clinton investigation, the non-news being unacceptable red meat for the media, they will make up some innuendo-based story. Bullshít for sure.
Really unfair to Hillary and it makes me really angry because it's hard to come across real information and even harder to find reasoned opinions about any of it.
The reasons I reject her as POTUS material has everything to do with actual facts.
None of it has anything to do with her or Bill's charitable efforts. I'm ok with most of it as it's really business as usual.
I've stated before that the email thing was the end of her, for me. She clearly placed her personal interests above the
interests of the country, specifically the national security.
She should not be POTUS for that reason, imo.
I see her as an eminently qualified candidate who has perfected the art of pandering to the big money crowd. That's my main objection to her. But if that is the game that must be played, then playing it well shouldn't be disparaged. I still don't
like it. Maybe the Bernie experience will show candidates that there is another way.
How wildly optimistic of you jc. That's not going to happen, but thanks for playing.
Hillary is more than qualified to be POTUS, more so than any I can remember and perhaps more than any in history. That's appropriate, given that women must be overqualified to get a glass-ceiling breaking job. It also doesn't negate the rest.
Bush 41 was right up there when you click off qualifications. He had a pretty distinguished carreer. Should have been reelected.
what makes her the most qualified ever?
@ 11 months ago
Fort Belvoir, VA, USA
If Bush had been re-elected we would have never had Bush Jr
Just her stint in the senate and her years as SoS put her ahead of most candidates. Add her years of wrangling with state and federal politicians. She's qualified. She's just unlikable.
hillary qualified that's crazy Doc even without taking the seizures into account . The only person capable of undoing what Obama did will have to be a male ...
Eaton Township, OH, USA
Clinton already admitted she has memory problems
of course she does. anyone her she has memory problems. Reagan was full blown Alzheimer's on his second term which means the onset was in first term. The digital age benefits those of us with poor memories, with numerous tools.
Too bad she used the home server for that purpose though lol. Maybe she just forgot to use the govt email system!
Hell if it weren't for a good assistant I'd be effing lost at work. I can't remember everything, yet I'm not POTUS.
I may have been mistaken about Trump's illegal charity faux pas. Somebody doesn't want to let it go.
jc what were her accomplishments in the senate and as sos?
President Not Sure
@ 11 months ago
Wright City, MO, USA
Don't you know about google?
She was pretty active in the senate. And enjoyed high approval ratings.
Just one of many.
that was just a bunch of political double speak.
The only thing the SOS does is execute the policies of the administration. If you have a problem with the policies, your problem is with Obama. He's the best judge of whether she did her job well. As far as I can tell, he had nothing but praise.
he he had another daughter she'd have the morals of Hillary
Tremont, Cleveland, OH
I dunno JC, Hillary fought with Obama on a bunch of things regarding foreign policy... Since he's President and she wasn't, obviously his recommendation won out but we should also look at what she recommended but didn't get.
Midtown, New York, NY
Obama having nothing but public praise is just political garbage, that tells you nothing about how he really thinks about her. That kind of thing would only come up privately, and certainly not now.
He obviously doesn't want Trump to be president, since he cannot run again, Hillary was his only shot at continuing his legacy. So why the hell *wouldn't* he be singing her praises?
Obviously he would sing her praises. I think you would find nearly unanimous praise for her while she was SOS. That is true from both sides of the aisle. Then came Benghazi. Things kinda changed at that point. But she maintained high approval
ratings right up to her resignation. Then came the hearings.
Clinton's memory problems seem situational. She's very sharp, but her recollection seems to fade around 3 letter agencies.
@JC - I agree the myriad Benghazi panels were ridiculous. The old "boy who cried wolf" problem, you are exactly right that the repubs overplayed their hand. That's working to HRC's advantage because she is able to
deflect current investigations as more of the same. The media is more than happy to follow suit (e.g. Krugman's "bravery" piece).
If you are interested in a financial investigation into the clinton foundation, Charles Ortel (charlesortel.com) has been promising a thorough review and the first of 40 planned releases is tonight.
Surely not objective, but it'll be interesting what comes from the review.
@Evil - I agree the innuendo garbage drives me crazy. The cough/seizure/thyroid/stamina thing is stupid.
I'm just waiting for the seizure remix
Cabbage Patch, Woodside Township, IL 62703
Well the media has a much easier time of it with Trump. Reporting the facts themselves is sufficient.
Stillwater, MN 55082, USA
There is a lot of media overtime devoted to making stories about Clinton sufficiently juicy to grab the public's ADHD-driven attention. It's difficult to rise to the level of attention commanded by Trump.