Trump: Why can't we just use nukes?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Murika, Aug 3, 2016.

  1. Biden seems like genuinely nice guy
    But then again, the odds someone high up the political ladder is likeable are fairly slim, as they've succesfully eliminated people not only from the opposition, but also from their own parties to be in the position they're in. Plus that it's only questionable whether govt functions can be considered real jobs or not and how much they actually can relate to the people that are ought to vote for them. Thinking of it, GWB also seems nice enough to invite to a dinner party with a couple of drinks afterwards, but I wouldn't have voted (if I could) for him to become president. But then the democrats brought in tossers twice in a row, haha.

    If anything, this year looks like it's gonna be a record year for blank votes :D
     
  2. With Hillary Clinton what specific examples of corruption can you point to?
     
  3. first thing to come to mind is that she hired the disgraced head of the DNC (debbie wasserman shultz) who was proven to be colluding to keep Sanders out of the race. Thats a **** you move to everyone who participated in the primary system. Sanders had donors, people gave money in good faith that he had a chance to win while his OWN party was colluding with Clinton and the fucking media. She hired her. Taking care of people who took care of her, and not even shy about it. This pisses me off the most, even though its not the shadiest thing she has done

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

    Interesting excerpts:

    Speeches: "What? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions of dollars for giving speeches.

    When? 2001-present

    Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton

    How serious is it?
    Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clintonon behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?"

    'Hi, this is goldman sachs, we will pay you 250k to 'speak' (or not) and we can talk behind doors about what you will do in return.' I'm not comfortable with this kind of shit.

    Clinton Foundation: "Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions."
     
  4. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/opinions/clinton-emails-opinion-mcenany/

    shit that is shady but offers no proof
    thats not surprising because youd have to be a complete idiot to leave actual proof on a written record
    putting a billionaire clinton foundation donor in touch with contacts within the state dept: SHADY
    This seems like exactly the type of shit the clinton foundation would be built for, to obfuscate connections.
     
  5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james...ly-to-lose-the-corruption-war_b_11251504.html

    "The evidence showing clear-cut, stupid-proof, quid-pro-quo between Bill and Hillary Clinton donors and candidate Hillary Clinton is getting too obvious to ignore. The case of Rajiv Fernando, founder of Chicago-based high-frequency trading firm Chopper Trading, is the tip of the approaching iceberg. Thanks to State Department emails obtained by watchdog group, Citizens United, as well as investigative work by ABC News, we now know that Mr. Fernando gave up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and tens of thousands more to assist Mrs. Clinton in paying off her 2008 campaign debt, while also acting as a major Clinton donation bundler.
    In exchange for his fundraising prowess, Fernando secured a coveted spot on the powerful International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) and concomitant access to our nation’s highest-level intelligence. It’s a position for which the “wealthy commodities broker” had zero experience or knowledge. The blatant quid pro quo was confirmed in a September 11, 2009 email from Fernando to then Clinton deputy chief of staff (now campaign vice chairwoman), Huma Abedin: “If there is any way I can be a part of the list of the final 25 I would be grateful. Please let me know if there is anything you need me to do.”

    Shortly after trying to have an ABC reporter arrested for legitimately asking him questions about this cozy arrangement, Mr. Fernando resigned from the ISAB, though he remains a big Clinton donor and is - in a laughable twist - a Clinton superdelegate."
     
  6. I have fact checked all of those, and they're 99% bullshit. But the thing is you've essentially copied and pasted a bunch of lengthy accusations (that someone else took the time to write), and addressing every one would take forever.

    So, which one would you like me to address?
     
  7. i dont know
    convince me shes not taking in huge amounts of money via the clinton foundation in return for using her position to grant political favors that work against the best interests of the american public

    or that rajiv fernando deserved his spot on the ISAB, and was appointed because of his skills and experience, and not because he donated more than a mil to the clinton foundation and directly to her campaign, or if there is some other reasonable explanation.
    i mean, he resigned soon after so maybe he realized that he was in over his head. seems like the prudent thing to do
     
  8. #108 Murika, Aug 12, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2016
    You can't prove a negative. Prove to me you don't jerk off to clown porn.

    Despite years and years of a right-wing witch hunt, the Clinton Foundation is an actual charity. One that does great work all over the world, who (unlike many charities) actually uses the lion's share of their donations on their causes and has an A rating from CharityWatch. Unlike "Trump University" it's not some snake oil money making scheme.

    It's part of the ISAB charter to have a wide range of backgrounds:

    http://m.state.gov/mc69295.htm

    "The ISAB will provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, and international security and related aspects of public diplomacy."

    The ABC news report, which was incidentally critical of the appointment, acknowledged he has technical know-how and is an expert on electronic investing. Worth noting his background in this field is very extensive.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

    "Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues."

    But it's so much more than just arms control, as per this ISAB report from 2014.

    http://m.state.gov/md229023.htm

    "The open nature of cyberspace, the access to information it enables, and the creativity that results, encourages a growing potential for a unique and accelerating process of innovation. This process also threatens individual privacy and the function of national infrastructure and financial systems in an historically unprecedented way. As the National Academy of Sciences points out, “cybersecurity is important to the United States, but the nation has other interests as well, some of which conflict with the imperatives of cybersecurity. It is important to recognize that tradeoffs are inevitable, and the nation’s political and policymaking bodies will have to decide on a case-by-case basis which national interests supersede increased cyber security.” By encouraging best practice, supporting and promulgating a modified theory of deterrence, and fostering international consensus on conduct in cyberspace among allies and friends, the Department can help in the national effort to allow the greatest utility from cyberspace in ways that do no harm."

    The ABC report also acknowledged he's a board member of the American Security Project.

    "Fernando is now a board member of a private group called the American Security Project, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization created to educate the American public and the world about the changing nature of national security in the 21st Century.” He also identifies himself online as a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and says he's involved with a Washington think tank"

    Here's what retired GEN Cheney (another ISAB board member had to say.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SCheney71/status/741659579684114433

    "I serve on the ISAB. #RajFernando expertise in cyber-security is a great asset to our national security"
     
  9. well I said convince me, you dont have to prove anything you cant. Im a reasonable man.
    if you think there isnt anything suspicious about the clinton fund and dont accept that it brings along at least the opportunity of conflicts of interest (ie, corruption) than I would say you are in the minority of people outside of full on Hillary supporteres

    If you accept that it brings along at least the opportunity for corruption, but trust that hillary isnt involved in it thats a little more understandable for me. If thats the case she certainly has a knack for getting into positions where things could easily be taken the wrong way.


    The stuff on Fernando seems to be far from a debunking, seems more like 'lets find an acceptable explanation'. If he was legit he shouldnt have resigned. The emails look shady. "please let me know if there is anything I can do" after hes donated millions seems shady. Unfortunate. I dont think shes clean. I dont think Washington is clean either, but thats not a defense and it doesnt make me feel better about Hillary.
    Id love to believe that shes not corrupt. Itd make me feel better about (probably) voting for her. I just think there is just way too much smoke around.

    And I havent forgiven her or the DNC for the blatant fuckery. Really fucking inexcusable
     
  10. Proof of what? I just told you that the article you posted isn't real. You don't need to post other dubious articles that are completely unrelated.
     
  11. im surprised you read/clicked on that
     
  12. There is absolutely nothing suspicious about the Clinton Foundation. It's a top-notch charity that does great work around the world, and they spend the large majority of their proceeds on their actual causes. There are tons and tons of charities with that don't get smeared like the Clinton Foundation, that spend the majority of their proceeds on "administrative costs." None of the Clintons draw a salary from it.

    I love how "corruption" suddenly becomes associated with rich people giving portions of their fortune to poor people around the world to fight poverty and improve healthcare and education - simply because Clinton's name is involved.

    On Fernando I proved that
    - He's an expert in his field.
    - His field of expertise is relevant.
    - His associates found him to be a valuable member of the board.

    But somehow that's still not enough.
     
  13. Finally you should realize that the GOP has spent millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, they've used every conceivable resource at their disposal, overturned every single rock and stone they possibly can in the pursuit of a perpetual smear campaign against Hillary Clinton.
     
  14. Welcome to every presidential election ever
     
    Tree Fitty likes this.
  15. And sadly there's a prescedent that it actually works too
     
  16. why are foreign govt s donating money to the clinton foundation?
    i guess i underestimated the amount of altruism at the highest reaches of power
     
  17. I get that. I get that foreign agents that might not have the best interests of the US at heart may have been behind the email hacks. I dont care. If the information they get is true, I dont care.
    Obviously the democrats arent going to spend any money to uncover conflicts of interest with the clintons, so I welcome the movement to open that shit wide open. Id hope the democrats, or somebody, does the same to the right.
     
    ETB4U and MooSquad like this.
  18. I'm unaware of foreign governments donating to the Clinton Foundation, but what point are you getting at with your question?

    The Clinton Foundation is bona fide charity that does great work, and neither Bill, nor Hillary nor Chelsea recieve a single cent from it.

    Something tells me that no matter what you're going to have endless "but why" questions.
     
  19. There's no "might" there. It was the Russians.

    Also, they didn't uncover some grand conspiracy. They uncovered a single email chain where people were making inappropriate, flippant remarks.
     
  20. because this is why almost all very rich people have foundations
    http://www.savewealth.com/planning/estate/foundations/
    its a great way to hold onto wealth

    A Private Family Foundation (PFF) is a separate entity, privately funded by you. It is created with the specific purpose of contributing to various charitable causes.

    As a distinct, legal entity, The Private Family Foundation:

    1. Contributes to a charitable cause and takes a tax deduction, while relinquishing personal control over your gift.

    2. Minimizes your estate tax liability.

    3. Avoids capital gains tax on the sale of appreciated property contributed to the charity of your choice.

    4. Provides continuing employment and activity for your family members.

    5. Identifies and preserves your family name for years to come.



    its also an okay way to raise money for charity
    For example, the clintons gave away 1 million dollars to charity last year!
    that charity was the clinton foundation

    im not accusing clinton of being bad with money. this seems like a pretty shrewd move.
     

Share This Page