Hillary NEW Emails Recovered Shows Pay for Play

Too bad he's a plant. He will probably spend the debates dancing around bringing any of this up, and if the audience or moderator asks about it, he'll just call Obama the n-word to distract everyone.

donald-hillary-800.jpg
 
I see I'm becoming a minor cause for celebration among the anti-Clinton faction. I don't mean to bend your party hats, but I'm watching and waiting on the Clinton Foundation. So far this doesn't appear to be particularly damning, but we'll see what happens.
 
Then every politician is a criminal.

Is it ok? IMHO, having seen it at work, I don't see the problem.
If someone is actually guilty of quid pro quo in a way that we can prove beyond "of course all know it happens" , they should have the book thrown at them because it is actually illegal
 
Let's be honest, we know Hillary is most likely the next president since Trumps media attacks and him shooting himself in the foot.

I keep trying to believe Clinton is looking out for our nations interest... I just can't.
 
If someone is actually guilty of quid pro quo in a way that we can prove beyond "of course all know it happens" , they should have the book thrown at them because it is actually illegal

Quid pro quo is very different from donating to a charity/foundation to raise your profile with a connected politician and increase your odds of getting heard.

Based on the links, it seemed like the latter. I didn't see anything that guaranteed one for the other, in either direction. Short of that, it's just playing the game.

Obviously direct bribery would be a criminal act.
 
Quid pro quo is very different from donating to a charity/foundation to raise your profile with a connected politician and increase your odds of getting heard.

Based on the links, it seemed like the latter. I didn't see anything that guaranteed one for the other, in either direction. Short of that, it's just playing the game.

Obviously direct bribery would be a criminal act.
It is interesting that Bush/Cheney Co. was able to much more direct about their...ahem...access dealings (the left definitely raised a stink, but nothing like this), while the Clintons funneling access through a nonprofit is somehow the end of the world. Not a "but Cheney" post, just an observation about our perceptions. I admit that back then a big part of me wanted Cheney tossed in jail so I can't play high and mighty.
 
So what is even the point of this? That it's ok? It's not ok, she's a criminal.

The point is that America had its chance in the primaries, and they came up with Joe Quimby and Donald Trump (who is such a cartoon that you dont need analogies) as candidates.

Literally

 
But what about Trump?!
And Bush?!
And the Crusades?!
 
Let me guess. Democrats want money out of politics so badly they'll ignore free speech by advocating laws to prevent large donations, but not so badly they'll turn on one of their own who is taking money for favors.
 
If this corruption is so prevalent, as it obviously seems to be, than why does she have so many supporters? I seriously don't understand it. Are we that dumb and sheepish as a country?
 
If this corruption is so prevalent, as it obviously seems to be, than why does she have so many supporters? I seriously don't understand it. Are we that dumb and sheepish as a country?

That is why (as faulty) as Trump is...at least he is an outsider and has a chance of temporarily throwing a wrench in things.

I would rather take a risk on him then going with the same old corruption (except it will be ramped up at an accelerated pace under Hillary)
 
I've said in other threads and I'll say it here. If people think this is a scandalous act, they have no idea how Washington works. The entire system works like this. Donating to the charities, pet projects, and friends of politicians is how people gain their name recognized and then they hope to parlay that recognition into an appropriate political appointment.

I'm not going to say that people who are concerned about such things should ignore it. Obviously, if your personal morality finds this objectionable then you should object to Hilary doing it.

But I'm going to stop short of calling this "pay for play" unless I'm literally calling the entire bureaucratic model "pay for play".

However, I can't be a hypocrite. When I wanted to run for office, I found myself treating a decent number of people to dinners on my tab. Donating to public events that I didn't care about just so that I could make connections with people who might help me. And, honestly, it worked even at the lowly level that I engaged in. And why bother? Because political affiliations meant a better chance of being awarded certain types of government paid legal work. When they hand out the snow plowing contracts in a city...it's not random. Some guy has been donating to the right causes for years.

I know of a guy who started a cancer research charity just so that he could parlay it into a conversation with a billionaire who's concerned about cancer. Lots of politicians got donations out of that. Just the way the world works.
This. It happens all the time in business too (and can be far more shady). There's nothing wrong with it either, this is how people form relationships. Pathetic thread.
 
That is why (as faulty) as Trump is...at least he is an outsider and has a chance of temporarily throwing a wrench in things.

I would rather take a risk on him then going with the same old corruption (except it will be ramped up at an accelerated pace under Hillary)

Yes, that has worked so well in the past thats how Hamas, Hugo Chavez, Hitler and others have been elected.
 
If this corruption is so prevalent, as it obviously seems to be, than why does she have so many supporters? I seriously don't understand it. Are we that dumb and sheepish as a country?

She leans left and Trump right that´s enough for this generation of good hearted folks to vote for her. Despite her showing complete disdain for human rights she is a Democrat and people buy into the whole speech about clean energy, civil rights, gun control and black lives matters.

Republicans are filled with idiots and after 8 years of Bush Junior is pretty hard not to blame people for not voting for them. But I still think Trump takes this there is too much information to leak, she is not a good debater and I´m sure Trump will make her lose her temper live in one of the debates.
 
Do any of Crooked Hillary's e-mails feature Gay for Pay?
 
Yes, that has worked so well in the past thats how Hamas, Hugo Chavez, Hitler and others have been elected.

Yitzhak Rabin is the reason Hamas was elected, decade after decade Palestinians have been pushed by Israel with US backing, Hugo Chavez is your standard leftist populist that pops up in Latin America takes power and turns the country worse when they are done and Hitler wtf are we comparing Hitler to Trump? The second Trump does something stupid he will be bombarded by americans, its a guy that once in office won´t have the media to back him up.
 
Yitzhak Rabin is the reason Hamas was elected, decade after decade Palestinians have been pushed by Israel with US backing, Hugo Chavez is your standard leftist populist that pops up in Latin America takes power and turns the country worse when they are done and Hitler wtf are we comparing Hitler to Trump? The second Trump does something stupid he will be bombarded by americans, its a guy that once in office won´t have the media to back him up.

My point is that if your car engine gives you trouble, you dont throw it off a bridge to see if it works. And while Trump himself may not do much damage it would probably break the entire political system for worse.

And its not like Americans had Hillary imposed on them, you had Bernie as a choice if you wanted honesty, and while Bernie ideas were a lot of times really whack, his honesty as a person is undeniable.

You wanted honesty, you should had voted Bernie, but that ship has sailed.
 
Back
Top