Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Sydänyö View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...clinton-money/

    You might say, "well, it's for charity, for the Clinton Foundation", which would be fair.


    However...


    Is there seriously still someone out there who thinks that Hillary Clinton isn't a corporate puppet?
    Cannot really fault her for it since that is the way the system is set up. Any and all president candidates can only fund their campains when they have the backing of big corporations and the wealth of businessmen (foreign or their own doesn't really matter to me, both is equally problematic in the end).

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    Cannot really fault her for it since that is the way the system is set up. Any and all president candidates can only fund their campains when they have the backing of big corporations and the wealth of businessmen (foreign or their own doesn't really matter to me, both is equally problematic in the end).
    Not true. Bernie Sanders is 100% funded by the people.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by damajin View Post
    You're talking about a woman who hasn't driven a car in over 20 years, she's trying to court voters who are younger than that and probably ironically have more driving experience than she does. Even Democrats have been out there this cycle talking about how she's the establishment, big business candidate. It's only the looniest of Clinton loons that doesn't think she's a walking talking corporate handjob.
    This paragraph applies to basically any political candidate. Or rich person. That you're trying to single it out as "Clinton is the only one!!!!!1111" is super strange.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    This paragraph applies to basically any political candidate. Or rich person. That you're trying to single it out as "Clinton is the only one!!!!!1111" is super strange.
    I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that only applies to Trump due to his wealth. The singling out is to highlight her snobbish elite diva mentality, something that even rabid Democrats can admit to.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by damajin View Post
    I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that only applies to Trump due to his wealth. The singling out is to highlight her snobbish elite diva mentality, something that even rabid Democrats can admit to.
    Again, this really isn't unique to her. This is just the life of the rich politicians we have - they don't drive and they like to convince young voters they know what they're going through.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    Again, this really isn't unique to her. This is just the life of the rich politicians we have - they don't drive and they like to convince young voters they know what they're going through.
    I'm definitely not disputing that, but this is a Hillary thread and there's actually people that aren't aware of the fact that she hasn't driven a car in over 20 years, implying an ultra pampered out of touch lifestyle. Every bit of info helps.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by damajin View Post
    I'm definitely not disputing that, but this is a Hillary thread and there's actually people that aren't aware of the fact that she hasn't driven a car in over 20 years, implying an ultra pampered out of touch lifestyle. Every bit of info helps.
    I'd say if people don't realize that about rich people, more info isn't going to help that mound of stupid

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    I'd say if people don't realize that about rich people, more info isn't going to help that mound of stupid
    True, but I've got an easy day at work today and it's raining so have to do something. Informing people of those feelgood and feelbad factoids helps get through the day.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by damajin View Post
    True, but I've got an easy day at work today and it's raining so have to do something. Informing people of those feelgood and feelbad factoids helps get through the day.
    ...i'll take your rain. please. raaaaaaaaain.

  10. #90
    Deleted
    is there anyone who doubted that shillary was actually a big corp sockpuppet?

  11. #91
    hey, you had decent candidates (sanders) and your people did not choose him
    now suffer
    Forgive my english, as i'm not a native speaker



  12. #92
    Uh oh spaghettios.

    http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/

    Hillary Has an NSA Problem

    For a year now, Hillary Clinton’s misuse of email during her tenure as secretary of state has hung like a dark cloud over her presidential campaign. As I told you months ago, email-gate isn’t going away, despite the best efforts of Team Clinton to make it disappear. Instead, the scandal has gotten worse, with never-ending revelations of apparent misconduct by Ms. Clinton and her staff. At this point, email-gate may be the only thing standing between Ms. Clinton and the White House this November.

    Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation examination of email-gate, pursuant to provisions of the Espionage Act, poses a major threat to Ms. Clinton’s presidential aspirations. However, even if the FBI recommends prosecution of her or members of her inner circle for mishandling of classified information—which is something the politically unconnected routinely do face prosecution for—it’s by no means certain that the Department of Justice will follow the FBI’s lead.

    What the DoJ decides to do with email-gate is ultimately a question of politics as much as justice. Ms. Clinton’s recent statement on her potential prosecution, “it’s not going to happen,” then refusing to address the question at all in a recent debate, led to speculation about a backroom deal with the White House to shield Ms. Clinton from prosecution as long as Mr. Obama is in the Oval Office. After mid-January, however, all bets would be off. In that case, winning the White House herself could be an urgent matter of avoiding prosecution for Ms. Clinton.

    That said, if the DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated. The FBI would be angry that its exhaustive investigation was thwarted by dirty deals between Democrats. In that case, a great deal of Clintonian dirty laundry could wind up in the hands of the press, habitual mainstream media covering for the Clintons notwithstanding, perhaps having a major impact on the presidential race this year.

    The FBI isn’t the only powerful federal agency that Hillary Clinton needs to worry about as she plots her path to the White House between scandals and leaks. For years, she has been on the bad side of the National Security Agency, America’s most important intelligence agency, as revealed by just-released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The documents, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten “hooked” on her Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.

    That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton’s main office space at Foggy Bottom was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced “skiff”) by insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington, D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical penetration, that’s where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.

    But personal electronic devices—your cellphone, your Blackberry—can never be brought into a SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance device—on you, the user—that also happens to provide phone service and Internet access.

    As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clinton and her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms. Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.

    This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S. government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.

    IAD had recently created a special, custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton wanted one for herself. However, making the new president’s personal Blackberry had been a time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.

    And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email anytime she wanted to right from her desk.

    But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point, “We were politely told to shut up and color” by IAD, explained the state security official.

    The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. “It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff,” he explained, “the whole ‘rules are for other people’ act that I remembered from the ’90s.” Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. “What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?” the former NSA official asked, adding, “I wonder now, and I sure wish I’d asked about it back in 2009.”

    He’s not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to—and why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a head thanks to Team Clinton’s gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.

    As I explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton’s emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton’s unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.

    To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.

    NSA officials were appalled by the State Department’s release of this email, since it bore all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January when I reported this, I was confident that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it was NSA information with “at least 90 percent confidence.”

    Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal’s June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthal’s highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

    Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified “Top Secret / Special Intelligence.” Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

    Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from their reports. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” one of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

    How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there’s no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports—none of which he was supposed to have any access to—and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on.

    Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal’s intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports.

    There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clinton’s staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?

    These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and the FBI right now. All of them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary Clinton—and who gets elected our next president in November.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Sydänyö View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...clinton-money/

    You might say, "well, it's for charity, for the Clinton Foundation", which would be fair.


    However...


    Is there seriously still someone out there who thinks that Hillary Clinton isn't a corporate puppet?
    So if the Clintons raise money, most of it going to their charity, as well as their political campaigns, the democratic party and other candidates running makes her bad, what does that make Bernie who raises millions of dollars for only himself?

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by triplesdsu View Post
    So if the Clintons raise money, most of it going to their charity, as well as their political campaigns, the democratic party and other candidates running makes her bad, what does that make Bernie who raises millions of dollars for only himself?
    Clearly the notion of collusion on Hillary's part is over your head.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

  15. #95
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by fengosa View Post
    Remember Donald Drumpf is financing his own campaign...but he's also promised to nominate a conservative justice who will uphold citizens united. I guess we'll call that one a draw.
    I don't understand how that's a draw. Complaining that wealthy donors are supporting a candidate, but the same wealthy donor running is alright. He plans to "bomb the shit out of ISIS" and then give the oil to Exxon:

    http://youtu.be/aWejiXvd-P8

    "Great oil companies".......
    Last edited by Felya; 2016-03-18 at 11:52 PM.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  16. #96
    All that money and support...and people think/thought Bernie has/had a chance?
    READ and be less Ignorant.

  17. #97
    The Lightbringer fengosa's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada, Eh
    Posts
    3,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    I don't understand how that's a draw. Complaining that wealthy donors are supporting a candidate, but the same wealthy donor running is alright. He plans to "bomb the shit out of ISIS" and then give the oil to Exxon:

    http://youtu.be/aWejiXvd-P8

    "Great oil companies".......
    My point is Trump is more likely to appoint a conservative judge who believes citizens united was a good idea even if he's 'self funding' his campaign. We're probably in agreement here.

    Back on topic, I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence in this thread that Hillary will be corrupt outside of she's receiving campaign donations. Feel free to point to any corruption during Bill or Obama's presidencies that might be repeated.

    In the meanwhile let's do some thinking about why GOP candidates are still denying climate change and whether or not those people are funded by the oil industry.

  18. #98
    I see many of you trashing the Citizens United decision I bet most of you doen't have a clue what it was all about. all you know your liberal rags told you Citizens United=Bad

    what Citizens United decision was about is corporations, groups, unions, clubs, what ever is allowed to spend unlimited money on speech. political speech or not what ever

    should Michael Moore and his production company be limited on how much he is allowed to spend to make his movies because his movies all are political would that be right and fair no it wouldn't
    Last edited by Vyxn; 2016-03-19 at 01:08 AM.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by damajin View Post
    Clearly the notion of collusion on Hillary's part is over your head.
    No. Im just not a hypocrit. Im not going to blast one candidate for doing the same thing that everyone else does. Politics is expensive and people dont give up money for free. Welcome to the real world. Is it also collusion when college students give Bernie money because he'll make other people pay for their education and healthcare?

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by triplesdsu View Post
    No. Im just not a hypocrit. Im not going to blast one candidate for doing the same thing that everyone else does. Politics is expensive and people dont give up money for free. Welcome to the real world. Is it also collusion when college students give Bernie money because he'll make other people pay for their education and healthcare?
    The difference is with Hillary she's flat out bought the DNC, funding much of the state level offices directly through her Hillary Victory Fund and of course with the direct approval of the head of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is pining for a big job in an Hillary administration since she's been fighting off a revolt from her caucus for about 2 years now. Doing that, along with all the other funding she's done is called buying the election, you know that very thing that Dems bitch about Repubs trying to do? Welcome to the real world, where collusion is collusion no matter who is doing it so you are in fact being a hypocrite unless you actually think this type of shit is ok, which if you do then you've got bigger problems then we can handle in this thread.
    The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire

    Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.

    Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •