I understand not liking Hillary but you're wrong about the Clinton Foundation being mired in debt to anybody...they have saved almost 7 million AIDs victims worldwide by providing medications...30 mill to Haiti after the disaster...read the real article about what they do and realize, it's not a private initiative that is lining Clinton's bank account.....they've actually done a lot of good in the world...the link is 2013 info http://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/2013year-endreport.pdf Hardly what I'd call a bogus charity...George Bush even supports it. Bill Gates has done a lot of charity work through them. A lot of wealthy folks around the world have joined the effort. To me this is like saying Habitat for Humanity is corrupt...I don't buy the storyline that is to me, clearly spin for the sole reason of discrediting the dems....and I'm not voting for her either..I just think all the info should be considered and until someone is charged with a murder, they are innocent in our system
Talking points. The charity spent $25M on travel last year. If any of that paid for Bill and Hiliar to travel, it's money they didn't have to spend themselves. It did line their pockets if that were the only questionable activity. But it's not the only questionable activity. The Clintons were paid enormous sums for speaking fees to those who both donated to the charity and received favorable treatment by the State Dept during Hiliar's tenure there. The whole thing stinks because it's rotten to the core.
Famous people all over the globe get paid well for speaking appearances...that's not news. If Bill Gates donates to a charity and hires them to speak...it's his choice...he can afford it. As to receiving favorable treatment by the State Dept....when you're a career politician married to a two term ex president, have governed and been Sec of State...you're going to get some perks.....rotten if you're a socialist and believe politicians should get the same pay as schoolteachers. There's no doubt the Clinton's have done well for themselves......Dick Cheney got a check from Haliburton and gave them Iraqi contracts which indirectly lined his pockets....the financial records of the Clinton Foundation show they've distributed the money to places the world and Wall Street tend to ignore. I like the work they've done....rich people travel in style. For what they've accomplished, it's a perk that doesn't bother me at all.
I mean, you could start with the fact that some of her biggest donors are war manufacturers (Boeing, Lockheed Martin $10 million each, I believe) and she consistently votes to start conflicts in other countries. She was one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war that George W. Bush takes so much heat over. How a liberal democrat can support a corporate war profiteer is beyond me. She's GWB in a pantsuit. Goes to show that some people only look at party affiliation.
arms dealers are one of the few 1%ers who have tons of expendable money....I do not see her as a hawk....actually I don't see George Bush Jr as a hawk, but his dad was. George Bush took most of the heat over his missin accomplished flight....it's Cheney that used his old company for profit in Iraq...he granted Haliburton all the contracts they wanted.....Hillary is smart...GWB is not a very bright guy
Bill Gates wasn't Secretary of State, nor is he seeking a position where he could possibly misuse the power and funds of public office. Cheney sold his Haliburton stock, a complete divorce from the company, when he was VP. When he ran Haliburton, he was given bigger and bigger contracts by the Bill Clinton administration. Hiliar signed a letter promising to live up to high ethical standards (haha, impossible for that woman) regarding the foundation while she was Secy of State. Unlike Cheney. Even so, those who are now supporting Hiliar are showing their hypocrisy by criticizing Cheney at the time and failing to criticize Hiliar now. As well, these same hypocrites were appalled that Reagan made a paid speech as ex-president. Hypocrites, every one.
It's a complete pick your poison situation to me. Trump is a total loose cannon, IMO. He says whatever comes into his mind and appears to have very little in the way of an operational filter to avoid saying things that are totally inappropriate. His "policy" positions are more blather than substance. The thought of him as CIC scares the hell out of me. Hillary is as far inside Washington as it's possible to get without creating the black hole you reference. On the surface, she supports every liberal position on the Democrat plank, but one has to wonder what and who she's beholden to for all of those highly-paid speeches and behind the scenes meetings. Her inability to tell the truth and willingness to try to hide things from the public eye scare me most about her. Double yuck as far as I'm concerned.
I vote for Gary Johnson...my point is that the Clinton Foundation is a good foundation that does important work....I didn't say Gates was a politician just like I didn't say some Saudi Prince is a politician in our govt...I don't want Hillary as prez....but not because of the Clinton Foundation
Personally, I think Trump is the worst possible candidate in a long history of bad candidates and Hillary looks burned out....enter...Gary Johnson..someone who is definitely a voice of reason in this circus of an election year
I think that's quite an exaggeration. She did vote for it, but that's different from being 'one of the biggest proponents'. barfo
Not if they were traveling on Foundation business. If I travel for business and my company pays, that's not 'lining my pockets'. And also by people who didn't donate to the charity or receive favorable treatment by the state department. You seem to think speaking fees are intrinsically unethical. They aren't. Yes, those damn Clintons, trying to keep people from dying from AIDS. Why can't they just put their name in big gold letters on buildings like real Americans do? barfo
I don't have a problem with the Clintons getting paid for speeches. Getting paid for speeches is a convenient way to pay for quid pro quo, and it is what happened. If Cheney kept his stock in Haliburton, you might have a point - but you don't. If Reagan's wife was going to run for president or serve as Secy of State, you might have a point - but you don't. Those things didn't happen with Cheney and Reagan, so ... my point stands - you wouldn't know what actual corruption looks like.
Yes it is. You need a class in economics still. They are when they are overpaid in exchange for political favors. The favors happened. If they wanted to try to keep people from dying from AIDS and run a charity, so be it. but they have obvious conflicts of interest if they serve in office - which Hiliar did as Secy of State and wants to as president.
There's a preponderance of evidence. It's not lacking. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf HAHAHAHA
If you vote for a bad thing, how is that different than having poor judgement? If you vote for a bad thing, how is that different from being a proponent?
