Hillary's biggest problem if she gets the nomination (and it is our problem as Dems, too)

[Aerows]

[hobbit709]

1. This will bring the alerters out in droves.

[Aerows]

5. Probably

but it is absolutely necessary to point this out. Republicans are playing coy by not bringing all of this up. They are waiting for her to secure the nomination, and you can bet this will be harped on morning, noon and night.

It's actually quite bright on the part of Republicans - they have a handy ace in the hole to derail her campaign if she is the nominee.

[Buzz Clik]

26. How many alerts so far?

[Aerows]

122. Clearly not enough to shut me up

in this thread.

[Electric Monk]

27. Jury results (1-6) I voted to Leave It

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Tue Dec 29, 2015, 01:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary's biggest problem if she gets the nomination (and it is our problem as Dems, too)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251956539

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is an asinine insinuation that there was a "quid pro quo" and this is straight from the right-wing knowledge base. This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and such innuendos without a proven "quid pro quo" makes it feel like free republic around here.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 29, 2015, 01:33 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter doesn't know their right from left. Nice try pretending to be a lefty and actually caring, though.

(based on replies in the thread) Was the alerter brooklynite? I suspect that it was. I hope this goes 0-7.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: is there something not factual in the graph?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter: If the graphic is incorrect, say so, and make your case. If the graphic correct them this is a thin skin alert and not worth a hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Jesus. Stupidity can be boundless.

[Electric Monk]

48. I find it curious and somewhat ironic that you chose to invoke a popular deity with your post. nt

[Buzz Clik]

60. What the fuck ever.

[Electric Monk]

64. Awesome reply displaying you've got what it takes, and thank you for kicking this thread. nt

[Buzz Clik]

66. You reply to me with a silly non sequitur...

... and demand substance in return?

[Electric Monk]

115. I expected less, and I wasn't disappointed. nt

[Buzz Clik]

116. ... Said the guy who started this exchange with a ridiculous, off topic comment.

[Electric Monk]

118. ...said the guy who sat on a jury that went 1-6 to leave a post that you chose to mock.'nuff said.nt

[Aerows]

123. Could you two cut it out?

You both are fine members of the DU community and this squabbling like kids is way beneath both of you.

We are all in this together.

[Electric Monk]

137. For the record, I was not the instigator this time. I can end this here with one last kick. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

140. "He started it!!!"

[Logical]

168. I find it odd you give a shit! Silly post as usual. Nt

[bvf]

150. "Jesus Stupidity."

Mind if I use that?

[Buzz Clik]

152. I put a period between the two. Feel free to modify away.

[bvf]

154. Great, thanks!

I know a few people around here who could put the period to better use, anyway. I'll just toss it in the big pile of ellipses over there.

[roguevalley]

78. this demonstrates pay for play. She should have never accepted the money if she

had this responsibility and she knew it. If she doesn't give this much of a damn about this clear situation, why would she give a damn about anything else?

[jberryhill]

102. If she had what responsibility?

Responsibility for approving weapons deals with countries to whom we've sold weapons for decades?

You think that is what the SoS does?

[Aerows]

124. Of course the SoS approves weapons deals

The problem comes in when said foreign nations make a tidy donation to the Clinton Foundation beforehand. Clinton's SoS traded 3x the number of military hardware compared to her counterparts in different administrations.

If that doesn't stink to high heaven of corruption, I have no idea what does.

[jberryhill]

141. I note that North Korea did not donate to the Clinton Foundation

So, in your view, is that the reason why we did not sell weapons to North Korea?

[Aerows]

151. You lost me with that one.

North Korea has been under sanctions for decades. North Korea is an enemy.

That's such a bizarre straw man, I have no idea what to make of it.

[jberryhill]

156. "North Korea has been under sanctions for decades. North Korea is an enemy."

Last edited Wed Dec 30, 2015, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

And we've been selling weapons to the countries in question prior to their donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Do you suppose that if North Korea donated to the Clinton Foundation, then HRC would have waved her apparent one-person magic wand and got them a weapons deal?

[Proserpina]

136. "thin skin" alert is a new one to me, but a good descriptor

The ones I really object to are the twist-reality ones.

[Babel_17]

157. Juror 7: Well said!

It's not like this won't get talked about.

[vkkv]

167. The GOP will get no traction with this.

Republicans LOVE to sell weapons, as do the defense contractors.

[Ned_Devine]

2. Hide those truths! There's no MIC!

[Aerows]

7. If Clinton secures the nomination

There will be a Republican sitting in the Oval Office, and it won't be Hillary.

This has conflict of interest written all over it, and you can take it to the bank that if she is our nominee, you won't hear about anything else until the GE.

[randys1]

3. Brought to you by the GOP, why is this crap here at DU?

[99th_Monkey]

13. Why do you assume it's from the GOP?

wait I know, because it doesn't look so good for HRC's campaign against Bernie.

Since when does the GOP give a rats ass about shady international arms deals?

[Scootaloo]

127. Because to randys1, all criticism of Clinton is right-wing.

It's his way of admitting to not having a useful counter-argument.

[JudyM]

23. Assuming it's accurate, it's informative and, unfortunately, pretty compelling. Nt

[Aerows]

41. One article. I'll try to find more

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[JudyM]

45. Strikes me as a clear, and damning, conflict of interest smoking gun. Nt

[Aerows]

62. I supplied several links

down thread.

[leveymg]

29. Much of Hillary's career is useful to the GOP. That is something DU needs to understand.

Does that answer your question, randys1?

[tularetom]

37. Well, is it true?

If it is it damn well ought to be here.

IMO the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Aerows]

42. Yep.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

[Duval]

49. It is true, randys1. That's why. eom

[Aerows]

61. And we will hear about nothing other than this

if she becomes the nominee.

It stinks of corruption and conflict of interest.

[vkkv]

146. CALM DOWN. If they didn't buy them from US - they'd have bought them elsewhere.

Not only that, but all of these nations have a right to buy weapons as a matter of "national security".

[cui bono]

158. Yeah! Might as well give your kids drugs too or they'll just get them from someone else.

So we've just thrown out integrity and ethics then. They're just 'quaint' now too?



.

[vkkv]

166. Absolutely! Especially when the parents are the biggest drug (weapons) dealers on the PLANET!!

Nice try bud..

Republicans LOVE to sell weapons, as do the defense contractors. The GOP will get no traction with this.

[Autumn]

148. Obviously you have proof the the information in the OP is false?

Please post it to correct the record. I will wait.

[NCTraveler]

4. I never thought I would see the....

Right wing extremist Jimmy Jihad Carter argument. This is just sick. I expect this from Trump supporters, not Democrats. Yeah, I know, you are just warning us.

[Armstead]

8. Well....Warnings are useful

[Prism]

10. Now now, you've spent the morning using draft dodging and hippie punching

Let's not get too disingenuously fluffed up over who's using Republican attacks around here.

[beam me up scottie]

12. *snerk*

[Juicy_Bellows]

16. Oooof!

Let's not forget yesterday's "I don't like my taxes paying for free stuff for others!"

[NCTraveler]

17. You should read the questions I posed in that op.

I think discussing how millennials might view that a lot different than my generation might prove interesting. But don't let me get in the way of your fact free rant. I think the questions I posed were in a positive light as to the direction of society, not negative. If you read that op you would know that. But the truth wouldn't be productive to your fact free smear.

[restorefreedom]

21. well done. nt

[roguevalley]

79. if god almightly posted that graphic on his webpage they would deny it. Three times.

[Ivan Kaputski]

97. Lol

[JackInGreen]

135. Oh you

[R B Garr]

142. The Clintons were also considered hippies, but

no one has problems punching them.

[jhart3333]

149. "were" is the operative word here. No longer are they hippies.

If they ever were.

[bvf]

153. That was perfect. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. ...says the side-walled hippie puncher.

[NCTraveler]

22. Never punched a hippie.

On item after item the hippies were right.

[Laser102]

95. Exactly. The hippies were right. And we are still right.

[Feeling the Bern]

89. Jury Results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Tue Dec 29, 2015, 04:23 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

...says the side-walled hippie puncher.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=956793

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Just a never ending parade of insults. Calling a DUer a "hippie puncher" for no apparent reason. I looked at all his posts and this insult is untrue, over the top and just plain rude.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 29, 2015, 04:32 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: inappropriate personal attack
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks suck.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is referencing something the poster said in another thread. Leave it alone.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I saw a couple of posts on this thread which I thought deserved a hide, but not this one. Leave it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[R B Garr]

143. The Clinton's were also considered hippies, but no one

objects to punching them.

[Scootaloo]

129. You're not seeing it here. Where are you looking?

[brooklynite]

6. Why?

I know this bothers you; what's the evidence for your assertion that this would be a negative in a GE campaign?

[Aerows]

9. If you can't figure out

what a conflict of interest is, I'm not here to educate you, and I won't waste my time explaining while you play dumb.

[Armstead]

11. You really don't thuink it will be a factor?

[leveymg]

33. OMG: You mean there has been NO discussion within the campaign of how to counter this?

I mean, other than accusing those who bring it up of being GOP shills? Surely, your question is merely rhetorical.

[brooklynite]

39. Which purer than snow Republican will bring this up?

Why doesn't Bernie?

[leveymg]

44. It doesn't have to be a candidate. More likely a series of 30 second Superpac spots.

In skilled hands, this sort of ad will have powerful sticking power in the minds of all but committed Hillary voters. If you disagree with that assessment, you need to state why.

[brooklynite]

51. I think the voters won't care at all...

...they'll be looking for specifics on economics, tax policy, campaign finance, immigration, criminal justice and infrastructure...like they are now.

Maybe that's why, while these cutesy internet graphics have been around for months, Clintons still ahead by 25-30%.

[Aerows]

55. What specifics are you talking about that Hillary has outlined?

Please post links.

I'll wait.

[brooklynite]

67. All on the website...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

[leveymg]

82. I think you're underestimating what Independents will find offensive about Hillary.

Your comment about Clinton being ahead 25-30% does not reflect the general electorate, and not the all-important Independent vote, which is the largest part of the electorate. The campaign's own polling shows what issues resonate negatively at this point. But the psychological terrain hasn't been softened yet. And, it will.

As you know, measuring public attitudes toward issues is all in how the issues are framed and polling questions are posed. Not many people give a shit about the Clinton Foundation taking money from Arabs in isolation at this point. But, after seeing repeated spots that tie Hillary to arms deals and many millions from countries that support ISIS and other Sunni terrorists -- framing is all-important -- then that will shift attitudes dramatically. I can guarantee it.

She is extremely vulnerable on this subject.

[hfojvt]

83. I think the voters SHOULD NOT care

it's a stupid graphic.

Much as I dislike the DLC Clintons, it is a stupid graphic.

a) If the Clinton foundation does good work (and most agree that it does) why should we care WHO gave money?

b) When have those countries ever NOT gotten arms deals?

[leveymg]

110. Even though it's amateur, still quite effective. Imagine what a multimillion ad buy in selected

markets will look like, and the effect that will have on voters who already distrust her. The connection between SOS Clinton and the slaughter and carnage in Syria, Libya and Iraq that allowed the establishment of the Islamic State and the spread of Saudi-supported terrorism still hasn't been made by any major candidate. Probably because the unspoken truth is they all support the mass slaughter part. But, a GOP SuperPac doesn't have such constraints.

The 15 and 30 second spots will have a devastating impact on people who have never seen much actual footage of what the destruction looks like.

[R B Garr]

145. LMAO! So now all of a sudden skilled "Superpac spots"

are a "concern' when they might target Hillary. But we've been told they won't matter when targeting Bernie since he wants money out of politics. LOL.

[cui bono]

159. Because Bernie has operated with integrity and ethics throughout his career.

Hillary, not so much. She's a great target for this stuff, Bernie, not so much.

You can't really not see that that's the point.

.

[R B Garr]

160. Good Lord, Al Gore was attacked for wearing khakis

You can't be serious. Smh

[Aerows]

47. Whoever the GOP nominee is

They will pound on this 24/7 if Hillary is our nominee.

You can take that to the bank.

[ucrdem]

56. Bernie already used it to launch his campaign.

Clinton Cash and the TPP were hot items at the time.

[karynnj]

71. If he did -- and did it well, he would then likely be called out for harming the

likely nominee. Not to mention, this accusation tarnishes a former Democratic President (it is foundation), the current President, whose administration this happened in and a future one. I suspect that a DEMOCRATIC candidate brought this up in the primary, he would be seriously hurt by many angered that, if true, it tarnishes so many of the very top Democrats.

Note a Republican would have no such problems in bringing this up ... if it is credible (a lower bar than true). As to being purer than snow -- consider that GWB ran on bringing honor and decency back to the WH when the entire DC press knew that he had been a mean drunk until he was 40 and had baggage. You do not need to be "pure as snow" to throw charges in American politics -- this is NOT "he who is without sin should throw the first stone."

Like the email server, I really do not get why HRC, who was already slated by 2009 to be the nominee would not have run the cleanest State Department ever.

[ucrdem]

77. He did. ABC, April 30: "Sanders Calls Clinton Foundation Money ‘A Very Serious Problem'"

Senator Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton Foundation Money ‘A Very Serious Problem’

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

[LiberalArkie]

76. This thing that bothers me Brooklynite is that it may not make any difference to the voters.

A couple of decades ago I think it would have made a big difference. But when presidents get re-elected after Iran-Contra and worse, and one with his pants down and another lying to start a war and take away many of our civil rights etc. The list goes on. I really do not think that most of the voters give a shit any more. I think the vote for what color tie and does it match their socks.

The thing that bothers me, is that you are probably correct. I think the person who will be elected will the the best showman or woman, I don't think their politics, morality, beliefs or any of that matters any more.

[WillyT]

14. K & R !!!

[Cassiopeia]

15. HRC is not a risk we can afford.

Even if she were to squeak out a GE win, Dems will get destroyed down ticket by her coat tails.

[dreamnightwind]

18. +1

[Ivan Kaputski]

98. ...but war is good for our economy. Don't you want jobs?

Last edited Wed Dec 30, 2015, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

[Aerows]

100. I agree.

Those that think this is a minor matter that can be overcome by Clinton's charisma and her campaign's tactics are in for a rude awakening.

[99Forever]

20. Precisely. nt

[Romulox]

24. Her supporters tend to get a thrill from the Warmonger stance. I doubt it will hurt her. nt

[Scuba]

35. But supporters on OUR side typically don't. And it WILL hurt her and US.

[Romulox]

36. We don't count. Hillary has already pivoted to the Right. She's courting "values voters" (sic). nt

[Scuba]

38. After she loses, the Third Way will blame "the extreme left."

[Romulox]

40. Agreed. Her supporters already are. nt

[Aerows]

163. It is tough to realize

that your candidate, Hillary"it's my turn" Clinton has an ocean of dirty laundry.

[ucrdem]

25. and Clinton Cash pulls ahead on the third lap . . .

followed closely by Email Server, Ben Ghazi and Dee el-See . . .

[thesquanderer]

85. I think the other big one Republicans will attack her on is...

...the rise of ISIS while she was SOS

[ucrdem]

86. Oh yes, she'll be attacked for letting Paris happen on her watch.

San Bernardino too. Never mind that neither did.

[onehandle]

28. Nothing, but nothing posted here will make a difference in the real world.

[Aerows]

65. If it doesn't make a difference

I really don't care. That won't stop me from posting. Hell, most of my recipes that I post in cooking and baking don't matter to the "real world", but that's not why I post them.

[raindaddy]

81. That's the problem....

When it becomes acceptable for the State Dept. to give a country like Algeria (a country that Clinton's State dept. slammed for it's human rights violations) a 70% increase in weapons sales after a $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation "the real world" is broken....

[lark]

31. To me, it's not the biggest problem.

The biggest problem is the private prison industry donations, drives an ignorant and destructive policy that keeps way too many from voting and can even take their lives. At the least, it's a life way less productive and way more difficult than it should be. Other, about equal problem is the donations by the huge corporations. Will she do anything about offshoring and tax advantages from that when so many companies that utilize this dodge supported her? Those are my main issues with Hillary and why I'm voting for Bernie in the primary.

[Sheepshank]

32. Damn this DU bubble...isn't that what you called DU?

Why do you even bother to educate everyone here, when all of your open minded friends are at DI

[Ferd Berfel]

34. Exactly the Problem with her CORPORATE puppet masters.

I just can't support her.

[Aerows]

43. Here are a couple of links for those that doubt the veracity of the image posted

From Mother Jones, which last I checked is not a Republican source.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

From International Business Times, which last I checked was pretty damn neutral:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[Nyan]

46. Hey don't forget

the Ukrainian oligarchs.

[Aerows]

50. Uh, well I can't forget

because I am unfamiliar with the Ukrainian oligarch connection?

[Nyan]

58. You'll find the info pretty easily but here it is

WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602

Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/clintons-charity-ties-with-oligarchs-behind-ukrainian-coup-revealed/5475866

The money from Ukrainian oligarchs kept flowing in through private channels even while she was SOS.

[nyabingi]

69. I love Global Research - the Canadians are getting to the nitty gritty (nt)

[Aerows]

74. Damn!

That's more awful icing on shit cake than I anticipated.

[OKNancy]

52. This was a bullshit story back in May and it still is

1. Correlation does not imply Causation
2. We gave money to these countries long before Clinton was Sec of State and long after
3. She is not the single person to approve this. The eventual expenditure is approved by Congress
4. The Clinton Foundation is a Charity and despite idiots who say they profit, this is simply not true.
2013 figures: Expenditures: 88% programs 5% fundraising 7% administrative

---

This died back in May when it came out and it will stay that way because there is no there there.

[MoonRiver]

53. Debunking means nothing around here.

[Aerows]

108. Bullshit excuses

for why a candidate does something unethical still means something everywhere.

[MoonRiver]

112. Are you aware of this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/22/charity-watchdog-removes-clinton-foundation-from-its-watch-list/?postshare=9171450908672396&tid=ss_tw

[Aerows]

117. Bullshit excuses

Integrity still means something to people that aren't in the DC bubble.

[MoonRiver]

138. Most Democrats in this country support her and believe in her.

I know that's not good news for some but them's the facts.

[treestar]

54. Are you claiming there is a direct relationship?

How did those countries get the same deals during other administrations?

Does the State Department get to say where those countries buy weapons from?

[Dems to Win]

57. IMHO, it's her $250,000 speeches to CitiBank and other banks

Both are millstones the Democrats don't need in trying to retain the White House.

[Aerows]

59. More links

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/26/clinton_foundation_state_department_weapons_deals_donations_approval_coincided.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/clinton-foundation-donors_0_n_7441486.html

[emsimon33]

63. This and the fact that she is viewed as dishonest and...

she will not energize Democrats to come out and vote for her (she is a meh candidate) while she will energize the Republicans to come out and vote against her.

I have never been wrong in my assessments. Bernie is our only hope.

[brooklynite]

70. Funny thing..I HAVE been wrong in my assessments

...and it's because of that history that I learned never to confuse my hopes and dreams with reality.

Now, I crunch hard data on a candidate's prospects, the ideology of the electorate and the issues in play. I'm sticking with Clinton.

[Juicy_Bellows]

99. Take it Leno!

[emsimon33]

113. Great response!

[Aerows]

162. That doesn't speak to credibility on her part either. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Isnt it true that the State Department routinely approved arms deals for these countries long before

Hillary was Secretary of State?

[George II]

88. Yes, and long before the Clinton Foundation even existed.

[Aerows]

107. Do you mean other than the fact

that she did so over 3 times what previous SoS did, and that was only after they deposited money into the Clinton Foundation?

[gordyfl]

72. Lucky for Hillary

Wow! That is such a conflict of interest. It just amazes me.

Lucky for Hillary, most voters don't know of this. If the "Alerter" succeeded, even less people would be aware of this.

Why doesn't the media put this story front and center? Why wait for the Republicans to exploit this?

[OKNancy]

73. They did, back in May. It died then because it's bullshit

[ucrdem]

80. On Twitter nobody knows it's a dead horse . . .

[Aerows]

128. It "died"

and is a Resurrection when needed ace up the sleeve for Republicans. Her campaign is hardly blindsided with this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Awww..c'mon. They invested in Hillary's campaign because they love democracy.

Or, are big fans of civil rights, women's rights, peace, equality, the environment, or.......

Maybe they see her as a buyable ally.

[brooklynite]

84. You know what politicians hate more than losing influence?

Losing...

And yet, with this "smoking gun" issue hanging over Clinton's head, and the potential to not only bring down her campaign but theirs if the Republicans win the White House, none of the dozens of candidates I've talked to, from liberals like Russ Feingold to moderates like Michael Bennet, think Bernie Sanders is a better choice as a nominee.

[Aerows]

92. It's a good thing

that you aren't in charge of telling every Democrat how they will vote in the Primary, because at this stage, that is where I'm keeping my eye on.

[brooklynite]

93. I absolutely agree...that's why I'm delighted to have Clinton up by 25-30 points...

...somehow these "burning issues" don't seem to be resonating.

[ValasHune]

87. right click: view image

[Aerows]

90. It was from PBS

are they also to be sent to the corner as hatemongers too, simply because they report the truth?

[ValasHune]

96. right....

I opened the image from this page by right clicking and viewing image... since it was somehow gone on this page. just an FYI for everyone....I think Hillary will have some 'splainin' to do very very soon on a great many things too mate.



also...these...


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clintons-morocco-117979
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/moroccan-cash-flows-to-clinton-foundation-116780
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-donations-to-hillary-clintons-foundation-raise-major-ethical-questions/
[3] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/26/clinton_foundation_state_department_weapons_deals_donations_approval_coincided.html
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html[5]

[ucrdem]

106. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ seems to be a Twitter server:

https://twittercommunity.com/t/what-is-this-pbs-twimg-etc/10119

[Laser102]

91. You mean the Clinton Foundation that does charitable work around the world?

What the hell? So these countries gave to a charitable foundation that has managed to bring immunization and education to millions around the world and this is bad? I don't give a flying f__k who the hell is running it or who is donating as long as it's helping people. Petty, petty. I'm sure if it was called the BS foundation everyone would sing its praises. As far as the weapons approval, give me a break. This was not done without Obamas approval. After all he is the President. Try again.

[stupidicus]

94. her supporters are fine with most-all of the cans of worms she has

and her support for the deathdealers she dealt with

[jberryhill]

101. That would mean something if the State Department authorized weapons deals

So you are saying these deals would not have happened in the absence of the charitable donations?

Is that what you are trying to suggest?

[Aerows]

105. I'm not suggesting it

I'm stating it outright. She negotiated 3X the amount of arms deals with KSA and others.

I wish it were a lie, to be honest with you.

[Purveyor]

103. These countries are all pillars of equal rights for women so

quit your whinning.

[Historic NY]

104. Hillary's biggest problem is the slime that people keep pushing....

One of the nation's largest charity watchdog groups has removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from its watch list that is supposed to alert donors to potential issues of interest when they are making philanthropic decisions.

The foundation was placed on the watch list in April after a slew of news stories about foreign governments and donors giving to the foundation who were also lobbying the Obama administration while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

The Clinton Foundation responded to the label with a lengthy memo in May.

"There has been no indication, accusation or evidence in any of these stories of any wrongdoing," the memo read. "Our supporters donate to the Clinton Foundation because they want to see lives improved; they want better opportunity across the globe; and they want to see communities, businesses and governments working together to address problems that, when working together, we have the solutions and resources to fix."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charity-watchdog-removes-clinton-foundation-from-watch-list/

[Aerows]

109. I have a simple solution

If you don't want to become known as being politically dirty, then don't do politically dirty things.

It is *nobody's* fault but Hillary if people decide they don't want to vote for her. That's why we have a primary to discern which candidate we will throw our support behind for the Presidency.

Hillary is so far away from being the ideal (or even passable) Democratic Party candidate, that there is no reason to even ask why.

She's a weathervane.

[leveymg]

111. She's a lightening rod for those who already oppose her, and a hard sell to those who don't yet have

an opinion. That's a difficult combination of negatives. She's afloat now because the GOP field is an overstuffed clown car of crazies. Once that gets narrowed down and the GOP can start focusing its own message and runs a lot of negative media against HRC, her historical negatives will be multiplied. There's an awful lot of mass mobilization potential in Hillary's candidacy for the GOP, not so much for the Democrats.

[ucrdem]

131. Thread win.

This is really stale baloney.

[MeNMyVolt]

114. Go back to DI.

Since you like it so much.

[edgineered]

119. This late in the thread and not a single Clinton supporter

has made the connection of how importantly those on the right view receipt of these monies from xtian nations. Oh, wait... they'll probably spin it to look like she has accepted money from non-christian folk. Well, its not like that would upset anyone, would it?

[Aerows]

121. They also claim that she has a platform

but can't seem to elaborate on it other than "Hillary Clinton will do good."

Sorry, that's not good enough for me. Bernie Sanders has meticulously stated his positions and his vision for the future.

[azmom]

120. Kick

[Live and Learn]

125. K&R for important information. Do you have a link to this? nt

[Live and Learn]

126. Never mind, I found some above. nt

[Aerows]

132. I try to be thorough

my friend.

I believe we are in for a wild ride with the primaries!

[Live and Learn]

133. Agreed. Thanks again. nt

[PatrickforO]

130. If this is true, then it is very, very serious.

This is the problem with that foundation. There are far too many shades of gray here.

Many don't trust Clinton as it is.

[Live and Learn]

134. Something like this could actually cost us the easiest win in history.

We should all be wary of.the proclivity of the Clintons to arouse scandals due to their own mistakes.

[Katashi_itto]

139. K&R! Down with 3rd Way.

[Indepatriot]

144. But.......BERNIE CAN'T WIN!!!! HILLARY IS OUR ONLY HOPE TO DEFEAT TRUMP!!!!!

DNC to Voters : "Please ignore all of Mrs. Clinton's many liabilities and trust that she really does have your best interests at heart".... and she can win!....no, really!

[SoapBox]

147. And to think, poor Hill and Willie were "flat broke"...

when they left the White House.

Even though they were already scheming to get her the Senator position in NY.

They make me ill.

[saidsimplesimon]

155. I don't have a twitter account.

Can you provide a block quote?

[Oilwellian]

161. Yet she supports gun control

One of her many inconsistencies.

[wildeyed]

164. You posted a jpeg image with pejorative picture and

some words and numbers on it but no attributions or links to verify the information. Also, the final sentence is a logic fail. WTF does this even mean?

[John Poet]

165. Yeah, looks like an issue.