Here is some fascinating statistics, published today by Politico. The punchline is that Trump would need to win 70% of white males in order to win the general election. But here's what's working against him: - No GOP candidate in the last half century has won more than 63% of white males - The turnout rate for white males is very high already, so not much 'enthusiasm' room to grow - Trump's favorable/unfavorable for Hispanics is -50%. That's astoundingly bad. Experts predict he might get 15% of the Hispanic vote. Bush peaked at 35%. Everyone else on the GOP has been much lower. Estimates are that Hispanic turnout will be 15% greater in '16 than in '12. So Trump's problem is exasperated even vs. Romney. - Asian-Americans are also similarly negative on him. - Romney only won 5% of the black vote in 2012. Don't think for a second that Obama is not going to savage Trump in the run up to the election. There is no way he will get the 12% Bush got. - Women are just as bad of a problem. Dems typically win 53% of the woman vote. He has to win 62% of all women + 70% of white men.
Because the other demographic numbers are working to persistently against him. His negatives with minorities and women are very high. So his core constituency is white males.
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
Completely agree. I'm not sure how we know that Obama prefers Bernie to Hillary. I know which one of the two Obama wanted in his cabinet.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Only way Obama gets involved in the primary before there is a nominee is as a peacemaker during a brokered convention. He will not endorse and he will avoid making any comment that can be twisted into an endorsement.
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
You think obama thinks Bernie is just another bitch boy whore for Israel? I think obama knows the deal with Israel but for self perseveration he watches his language and signs those yearly aid packages in secret.
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
Completely agree. I'm not sure how we know that Obama prefers Bernie to Hillary. I know which one of the two Obama wanted in his cabinet.
You really think he wanted Hillary in his cabinet?
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
You think obama thinks Bernie is just another bitch boy whore for Israel? I think obama knows the deal with Israel but for self perseveration he watches his language and signs those yearly aid packages in secret.
This comes off as unhinged. Hillary supports a two state solution, as do Obama and Sanders. They all supported the Iran deal. Where do yo see daylight between Obama and Hillary on the issue?
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
Completely agree. I'm not sure how we know that Obama prefers Bernie to Hillary. I know which one of the two Obama wanted in his cabinet.
You really think he wanted Hillary in his cabinet?
It was likely an agreement that they made during the campaign for her to exit and allow Obama to pivot. He could have pushed her out and won the election so he didn't need to offer, what is essentially the most important executive appointment.
When she exited, the popular vote was close but the delegate math was almost insurmountable. Incidentally, Hillary has a bigger lead in both delegate and raw votes than Obama did if I'm not mistaken.
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
Uh..what? Why do you think Obama knows that Bernie is better for the country than Hillary? I think you are coloring what Obama thinks with your personal feelings. But you're right that Obama will not weigh in on the nomination. It would be a massive break in decorum and highly inappropriate.
You think obama thinks Bernie is just another bitch boy whore for Israel? I think obama knows the deal with Israel but for self perseveration he watches his language and signs those yearly aid packages in secret.
This comes off as unhinged. Hillary supports a two state solution, as do Obama and Sanders. They all supported the Iran deal. Where do yo see daylight between Obama and Hillary on the issue?
Two state solution = delay real solution allow Israel with the full support of every branch of us government to continue to steal land murder and maim Palestinians and commit more war crimes
While she was Secretary of State from 2009–2013, Hillary R. Clinton was no angel, even though some worship her as a god. The reality is, she was a world arms dealer when she was in power. Using taxpayer money, she put weapons of war in the hands of the most dangerously motivated terror groups in the Middle East. In all, she was responsible for approving $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations. The governments of these 20 nations (where the American flag is often burned), had given $millions to the Clinton Foundation. As International Business Times reports, “The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
Hillary Clinton says she's the "most transparent" public official of modern times, slamming critics of her email practices in a new interview.
You kind of have to agree with her. The GOP has spent over 4 years attempting to bring her down. They have looked into every single detail of her life and made it public. They have run a media campaign of lies so fierce that every Republican hears her name and throws up in their mouth. There is nothing about Hillary that we don't know. So yeah, I'd say she is the most transparent.
While she was Secretary of State from 2009–2013, Hillary R. Clinton was no angel, even though some worship her as a god. The reality is, she was a world arms dealer when she was in power. Using taxpayer money, she put weapons of war in the hands of the most dangerously motivated terror groups in the Middle East. In all, she was responsible for approving $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations. The governments of these 20 nations (where the American flag is often burned), had given $millions to the Clinton Foundation. As International Business Times reports, “The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
You forgot to include the next paragraph from the article:
Taking taxpayer dollars to run guns to the Middle East isn’t the only way Hillary raises money for her foundation and campaign for power. She also accepted a $20 million endorsement from Planned Parenthood, an organization that should be funding women’s reproductive health, as they advertise. Instead, the anti-choice Planned Parenthood takes $20 million from taxpayers to send to Hillary in hopes of getting her elected. After all, Clinton is their number one spokesperson, advocating for increased Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding! If Planned Parenthood was truly an unbiased, pro-choice, women’s healthcare organization, then women would have the option to give birth there, and not just be coerced into life terminating surgeries.
So thanks for quoting a crazy conspiracy author/website. But the real issue is that they are conflating two things together that are likely unrelated. Did the State Dept authorize the weapon sale? Probably. But two things also matter: 1. So did Kerry's state Dept along with State chiefs prior and 2. The DOD also has to sign off. That means Chuck Hagel, as an example. In fact, several of those countries that were quoted in the article had the major sales begin under Kerry, not Clinton. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/middleeast/us-selling-arms-to-israel-saudi-arabia-and-emirates.html
And here are all the countries that both the US and Russia sell weapons to.. Do you think that US began selling weapons in the Middle East during Obama's first term? That's when it started?
This was from Business Insider, published from 2014. So it's not like Clinton struck these deals to fund the Clinton Foundation. That is outright misrepresentation. Sales started before her, and continue today. And as I said above, the author that you quoted clearly has no concept of the checks and balances set up within the Executive Branch. As if Clinton could just start selling arms without the DOD or POTUS approving.
Hillary Clinton says she's the "most transparent" public official of modern times, slamming critics of her email practices in a new interview.
You kind of have to agree with her. The GOP has spent over 4 years attempting to bring her down. They have looked into every single detail of her life and made it public. They have run a media campaign of lies so fierce that every Republican hears her name and throws up in their mouth. There is nothing about Hillary that we don't know. So yeah, I'd say she is the most transparent.
I don't know if she's the most transparent, that's not really the word I would use especially with the transcripts we are waiting for. But her skeletons have all been revealed It seems...
Hillary Clinton says she's the "most transparent" public official of modern times, slamming critics of her email practices in a new interview.
You kind of have to agree with her. The GOP has spent over 4 years attempting to bring her down. They have looked into every single detail of her life and made it public. They have run a media campaign of lies so fierce that every Republican hears her name and throws up in their mouth. There is nothing about Hillary that we don't know. So yeah, I'd say she is the most transparent.
I don't know if she's the most transparent, that's not really the word I would use especially with the transcripts we are waiting for. But her skeletons have all been revealed It seems...
What about it? Robert Byrd disavowed the KKK and his previous supremacist feelings a thousand times. He even ended up supporting Civil Rights amendments in 68. He was president of the friggin' Senate during Clinton's presidency. So I"m pretty sure you'll find lots of photos of Democrats who served in the 90's, embracing Byrd. There's a big difference between Duke and Byrd. Duke is a committed, continuing white supremacist.
While she was Secretary of State from 2009–2013, Hillary R. Clinton was no angel, even though some worship her as a god. The reality is, she was a world arms dealer when she was in power. Using taxpayer money, she put weapons of war in the hands of the most dangerously motivated terror groups in the Middle East. In all, she was responsible for approving $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations. The governments of these 20 nations (where the American flag is often burned), had given $millions to the Clinton Foundation. As International Business Times reports, “The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
You forgot to include the next paragraph from the article:
Taking taxpayer dollars to run guns to the Middle East isn’t the only way Hillary raises money for her foundation and campaign for power. She also accepted a $20 million endorsement from Planned Parenthood, an organization that should be funding women’s reproductive health, as they advertise. Instead, the anti-choice Planned Parenthood takes $20 million from taxpayers to send to Hillary in hopes of getting her elected. After all, Clinton is their number one spokesperson, advocating for increased Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding! If Planned Parenthood was truly an unbiased, pro-choice, women’s healthcare organization, then women would have the option to give birth there, and not just be coerced into life terminating surgeries.
So thanks for quoting a crazy conspiracy author/website. But the real issue is that they are conflating two things together that are likely unrelated. Did the State Dept authorize the weapon sale? Probably. But two things also matter: 1. So did Kerry's state Dept along with State chiefs prior and 2. The DOD also has to sign off. That means Chuck Hagel, as an example. In fact, several of those countries that were quoted in the article had the major sales begin under Kerry, not Clinton. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/middleeast/us-selling-arms-to-israel-saudi-arabia-and-emirates.html
And here are all the countries that both the US and Russia sell weapons to.. Do you think that US began selling weapons in the Middle East during Obama's first term? That's when it started?
This was from Business Insider, published from 2014. So it's not like Clinton struck these deals to fund the Clinton Foundation. That is outright misrepresentation. Sales started before her, and continue today. And as I said above, the author that you quoted clearly has no concept of the checks and balances set up within the Executive Branch. As if Clinton could just start selling arms without the DOD or POTUS approving.
Clinton is a war hawk, maybe moreso than Cheney, owned by defense contractors and chummy with oppressive regimes you're saying, that is not the case it's been going on for years?
Of course Clinton is a hawk. I said as much in a post much earlier. But that doesn't mean that A. She was selling arms in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and B. She somehow unilaterally began selling these arms and did so without the knowledge of Obama. That article was full of conspiracy theories, including the one that Planned Parenthood coerces women into abortions and that it has Clinton bought and paid for. You can't choose to believe one piece of hit job and not another.
Is Bernie more dovish? Yes, likely but we don't know for sure. Bernie also voted to protect gun manufacturers. Are you proud of that stance? Either way, I'm not bothering to argue merits of Bernie vs Hillary because the primaries are effectively over. It's now Hillary vs the "R".
Of course Clinton is a hawk. I said as much in a post much earlier. But that doesn't mean that A. She was selling arms in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and B. She somehow unilaterally began selling these arms and did so without the knowledge of Obama. That article was full of conspiracy theories, including the one that Planned Parenthood coerces women into abortions and that it has Clinton bought and paid for. You can't choose to believe one piece of hit job and not another.
Is Bernie more dovish? Yes, likely but we don't know for sure. Bernie also voted to protect gun manufacturers. Are you proud of that stance? Either way, I'm not bothering to argue merits of Bernie vs Hillary because the primaries are effectively over. It's now Hillary vs the "R".
You posted the planned parenthood non sense not me...what I pasted is fact regardless of how long the same things have been going on and the conclusions you wish to draw. Have these counties that bought arms contributed to her foundation before? Have they contributed to other sec of state foundations?
I guess your assuming I'm a Bernie Bro... And i don't know anything about the protecting the gun manufacturers but I'm sure he had good reason to. As I said before the democratic nomination was bestowed upon Hillary 8 years ago.
Of course Clinton is a hawk. I said as much in a post much earlier. But that doesn't mean that A. She was selling arms in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and B. She somehow unilaterally began selling these arms and did so without the knowledge of Obama. That article was full of conspiracy theories, including the one that Planned Parenthood coerces women into abortions and that it has Clinton bought and paid for. You can't choose to believe one piece of hit job and not another.
Is Bernie more dovish? Yes, likely but we don't know for sure. Bernie also voted to protect gun manufacturers. Are you proud of that stance? Either way, I'm not bothering to argue merits of Bernie vs Hillary because the primaries are effectively over. It's now Hillary vs the "R".
You posted the planned parenthood non sense not me...what I pasted is fact regardless of how long the same things have been going on and the conclusions you wish to draw. Have these counties that bought arms contributed to her foundation before? Have they contributed to other sec of state foundations?
I guess your assuming I'm a Bernie Bro... And i don't know anything about the protecting the gun manufacturers but I'm sure he had good reason to. As I said before the democratic nomination was bestowed upon Hillary 8 years ago.
You didn't provide a reference, so I found it myself. You are agreeing with a writer's pov and then ignoring the very next paragraph which destroys his credibility, even before researching the claims.
Your question: what I pasted is fact regardless of how long the same things have been going on and the conclusions you wish to draw. Have these counties that bought arms contributed to her foundation before? Have they contributed to other sec of state foundations?
Your assumption is that the deal was done quid pro quo. I'm saying, if Israel has been receiving munitions from us every year from 1946-2016, you can't suddenly call it quid pro quo only during 2008-'12. That's intellectually dishonest. That's basically the argument here. And then you ask, did they contribute before? The answer is I don't know. Do you know? The author didn't explore it or just as likely, ignored the answer because it weakened his case. Did you read the Foundation's filings from 2000-2012 to bullet proof your post before you posted it?
My bad Im illustrating that she accepted money from countries (some not so good from a typical USA viewpoint ignoring our own atrocities) that she as sec of state sold billions of weapons to and I thought you were saying that the donations had nothing to do with the approved arms sales. If those arm sales countries have a history of contributing to the Hillary foundation then it's safe to assume the contributions were solely for all the wonderful things her foundations do. "I'll look into" the history of contributions of those countries.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Among the most striking and troubling aspects of the Clinton System are the large contributions corporations and foreign governments have made to the Clinton Foundation, along with Bill Clinton’s readiness to accept six-figure speaking fees from some of them, at times when the donors themselves had a potential financial interest in decisions being made at Hillary Clinton’s State Department. An investigation published in April 2015 by Andrew Perez, David Sirota and Matthew Cunningham-Cook at International Business Times shows that during the three-year period from October 2009 through December 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, there were at least thirteen occasions—collectively worth $2.5 million—when Bill Clinton received a six-figure speaking fee from corporations or trade groups that, according to Federal Government records, were at the time engaged in lobbying at the State Department.
These payments to Bill Clinton in 2010 included: $175,000 from VeriSign Corporation, which was engaged in lobbying at the State Department on cybersecurity and Internet taxation; $175,000 from Microsoft, which was lobbying the government on the issuance of immigrant work visas; $200,000 from SalesForce, a firm that lobbied the government on digital security issues, among other things. In 2011, these payments included: $200,000 from Goldman Sachs, which was lobbying on the Budget Control Act; and $200,000 from PhRMA, the trade association representing drug companies, which was seeking special trade protections for US-innovated drugs in the Trans-Pacific Partnership then being negotiated.
And in 2012, payments included: $200,000 from the National Retail Federation, which was lobbying at the State Department on legislation to fight Chinese currency manipulation; $175,000 from BHP Billiton, which wanted the government to protect its mining interests in Gabon; $200,000 from Oracle, which, like Microsoft, was seeking the government to issue work visas and measures dealing with cyber-espionage; and $300,000 from Dell Corporation, which was lobbying the State Department to protest tariffs imposed by European countries on its computers.
During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, US defense corporations and their overseas clients also contributed between $54 and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Because the foundation discloses a range of values within which the contributions of particular donors might fall, only minimum and maximum estimates can be given.) In the same period, these US defense corporations and their overseas government clients also paid a total of $625,000 to Bill Clinton in speaking fees.
In March 2011, for example, Bill Clinton was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual Washington gala. Among the sponsors were Boeing and the government of Kuwait, through its Washington embassy. Shortly before, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, had authorized a $693 million deal to provide Kuwait with Boeing’s Globemaster military transport aircraft. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the statutory duty to rule on whether proposed arms deals with foreign governments were in the US’s national interest.
Further research done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clinton’s authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bush’s second term.
Comments
The obama tidbit is interesting, I know no sitting president would involve themselves in a primary race but I think obama could hand Bernie the nom if he endorsed Sanders. Political death sentence but just saying. Obama is smart enough to know that Bernie would be much better for the country that Hillary.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I think obama knows the deal with Israel but for self perseveration he watches his language and signs those yearly aid packages in secret.
When she exited, the popular vote was close but the delegate math was almost insurmountable. Incidentally, Hillary has a bigger lead in both delegate and raw votes than Obama did if I'm not mistaken.
As International Business Times reports, “The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
Taking taxpayer dollars to run guns to the Middle East isn’t the only way Hillary raises money for her foundation and campaign for power. She also accepted a $20 million endorsement from Planned Parenthood, an organization that should be funding women’s reproductive health, as they advertise. Instead, the anti-choice Planned Parenthood takes $20 million from taxpayers to send to Hillary in hopes of getting her elected. After all, Clinton is their number one spokesperson, advocating for increased Planned Parenthood taxpayer funding! If Planned Parenthood was truly an unbiased, pro-choice, women’s healthcare organization, then women would have the option to give birth there, and not just be coerced into life terminating surgeries.
So thanks for quoting a crazy conspiracy author/website. But the real issue is that they are conflating two things together that are likely unrelated. Did the State Dept authorize the weapon sale? Probably. But two things also matter: 1. So did Kerry's state Dept along with State chiefs prior and 2. The DOD also has to sign off. That means Chuck Hagel, as an example. In fact, several of those countries that were quoted in the article had the major sales begin under Kerry, not Clinton. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/middleeast/us-selling-arms-to-israel-saudi-arabia-and-emirates.html
And here are all the countries that both the US and Russia sell weapons to.. Do you think that US began selling weapons in the Middle East during Obama's first term? That's when it started?
This was from Business Insider, published from 2014. So it's not like Clinton struck these deals to fund the Clinton Foundation. That is outright misrepresentation. Sales started before her, and continue today. And as I said above, the author that you quoted clearly has no concept of the checks and balances set up within the Executive Branch. As if Clinton could just start selling arms without the DOD or POTUS approving.
I haven't seen anyone post about this though. http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
Is Bernie more dovish? Yes, likely but we don't know for sure. Bernie also voted to protect gun manufacturers. Are you proud of that stance? Either way, I'm not bothering to argue merits of Bernie vs Hillary because the primaries are effectively over. It's now Hillary vs the "R".
I guess your assuming I'm a Bernie Bro... And i don't know anything about the protecting the gun manufacturers but I'm sure he had good reason to.
As I said before the democratic nomination was bestowed upon Hillary 8 years ago.
You didn't provide a reference, so I found it myself. You are agreeing with a writer's pov and then ignoring the very next paragraph which destroys his credibility, even before researching the claims.
Your question: what I pasted is fact regardless of how long the same things have been going on and the conclusions you wish to draw. Have these counties that bought arms contributed to her foundation before? Have they contributed to other sec of state foundations?
Your assumption is that the deal was done quid pro quo. I'm saying, if Israel has been receiving munitions from us every year from 1946-2016, you can't suddenly call it quid pro quo only during 2008-'12. That's intellectually dishonest. That's basically the argument here. And then you ask, did they contribute before? The answer is I don't know. Do you know? The author didn't explore it or just as likely, ignored the answer because it weakened his case. Did you read the Foundation's filings from 2000-2012 to bullet proof your post before you posted it?
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
These payments to Bill Clinton in 2010 included: $175,000 from VeriSign Corporation, which was engaged in lobbying at the State Department on cybersecurity and Internet taxation; $175,000 from Microsoft, which was lobbying the government on the issuance of immigrant work visas; $200,000 from SalesForce, a firm that lobbied the government on digital security issues, among other things. In 2011, these payments included: $200,000 from Goldman Sachs, which was lobbying on the Budget Control Act; and $200,000 from PhRMA, the trade association representing drug companies, which was seeking special trade protections for US-innovated drugs in the Trans-Pacific Partnership then being negotiated.
And in 2012, payments included: $200,000 from the National Retail Federation, which was lobbying at the State Department on legislation to fight Chinese currency manipulation; $175,000 from BHP Billiton, which wanted the government to protect its mining interests in Gabon; $200,000 from Oracle, which, like Microsoft, was seeking the government to issue work visas and measures dealing with cyber-espionage; and $300,000 from Dell Corporation, which was lobbying the State Department to protest tariffs imposed by European countries on its computers.
During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, US defense corporations and their overseas clients also contributed between $54 and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Because the foundation discloses a range of values within which the contributions of particular donors might fall, only minimum and maximum estimates can be given.) In the same period, these US defense corporations and their overseas government clients also paid a total of $625,000 to Bill Clinton in speaking fees.
In March 2011, for example, Bill Clinton was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual Washington gala. Among the sponsors were Boeing and the government of Kuwait, through its Washington embassy. Shortly before, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, had authorized a $693 million deal to provide Kuwait with Boeing’s Globemaster military transport aircraft. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the statutory duty to rule on whether proposed arms deals with foreign governments were in the US’s national interest.
Further research done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clinton’s authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bush’s second term.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/