Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Felya]

Now will you admit the Clinton 'David Duke' line of attack on Trump is ludicrous, considering you are arguing that Hillary has nothing to do with the people who gave her organization massive amounts of money?

The one where he claimed to not know who he is, because his headphones were broken?

[Merkava]

Here's their current lineup - https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/leadership-team

The Saudi royal family has donated periodically over the years, so it's been run by a number of people. None of which were Hillary IIRC, but I'd need to double check on that one.



Apples and oranges. David Duke is supporting Trump himself specifically because he believes Trump is echoing his racist, bigoted ideology and bringing it to a broader platform.

The Saudi royal family has donated to the Clinton Foundation (which again, Hillary does not run and does not have access to their funds) over decades.

I quote people for a reason. Here's what me and PRE 9-11 were talking about

The Clinton Foundation received a $10 million donation from Saudi Arabia. The used the entirety of that donations to help build the $165 million Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.

That's not even close to "Hillary Clinton took tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia."

[Edge-]

I quote people for a reason. Here's what me and PRE 9-11 were talking about

Yes, and there are multiple discussions on this topic going on at once. Why bring his his post? It's still factually true, and I responded that Hillary has not been (that I can find) in charge of the Clinton Foundation, which would mean she has never had the authority to deny donations to the foundation.

Am I missing something?

[Felya]

Yes, and there are multiple discussions on this topic going on at once. Why bring his his post? It's still factually true, and I responded that Hillary has not been (that I can find) in charge of the Clinton Foundation, which would mean she has never had the authority to deny donations to the foundation.

Am I missing something?

I think you guys might be in a quagmire of authority vs access. Her ownership of the foundation intrinsically gives her authority, but due to her not being on the board, there is nothing to say she had access to express her authority.

[TZucchini]

Let's back up. You agree that Hillary Clinton had the authority and influence to refuse the money. Is that correct?

I don't know. I would doubt that any single individual, including Bill Clinton himself, has the ability to veto a donation. That would likely need to be approved by the board.

But assuming she did. I fail to see how it qualifies as her personally approving and accepting the donation.

[Merkava]

Yes, and there are multiple discussions on this topic going on at once. Why bring his his post? It's still factually true, and I responded that Hillary has not been (that I can find) in charge of the Clinton Foundation, which would mean she has never had the authority to deny donations to the foundation.

Am I missing something?

I introduced that post because that's the first post that I replied to.

Tell, me, and everyone here, with a straight face, that you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton didn't wield enough influence over the foundation that carries her name, to approve or deny a $10 Million donation from a foreign nation. Tell me that's what you actually believe, and then I think you'll find a whole bunch of people willing to tell you what you're missing.

[Edge-]

Tell, me, and everyone here, with a straight face, that you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton didn't wield enough influence over the foundation that carries her name, to approve or deny a $10 Million donation from a foreign nation.

Yes. She is not involved in the day to day business of the organization.

Do you have evidence otherwise that would strongly imply that she did? Please show it, if you do. Otherwise I'll file this one away with the dozens of other conspiracy theories about Clinton that have popped up this election.

Tell me that's what you actually believe, and then I think you'll find a whole bunch of people willing to tell you what you're missing.

I'm always interested to know what I'm missing. If you have more detailed info that doesn't come from Infowars or Breitbart as a primary source, by all means please share.

[Lenonis]

Do you have a specific case in which Scalia just tried to drop the hammer on LGBT outside of marriage that concerned issues like those above? I'm not convinced a Trump nomination would be a deathblow to LGBT rights, to include marriage, thus rendering the assessment that Hillary >> Trump on this particular point.

Slate has a good article on this -- if you hate Slate then just read Scalia's own words (and not where he was in the dissent)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ay_legacy.html

I think, also, there is a difference between being a deathblow to gay rights (implying a rollback of given rights which frankly isn't likely -- the courts generally don't take away already granted rights for a number of reasons) and being a roadblock to continued progress towards equality.

Either way given the court's 4-4 composition and the likely departure of at least one liberal judge in the next 4 years it's clear that in order to preserve at a minimum the inertia in this area and at a maximum protect the existing rights, liberal justices would be better than ones Trump would pick.

[Melkandor]

Looks like your Queen really is sick guys. Sorry mates

[Kujako]

Looks like your Queen really is sick guys. Sorry mates

Beyonce's fine.

[Felya]

Looks like your Queen really is sick guys. Sorry mates

You are projecting...

[Merkava]

I don't know. I would doubt that any single individual, including Bill Clinton himself, has the ability to veto a donation. That would likely need to be approved by the board.

But assuming she did. I fail to see how it qualifies as her personally approving and accepting the donation.

Now you're saying that William J. Clinton himself wouldn't have the authority to approve a donation from a foreign nation to the William J. Clinton Foundation?

Facing criticism for some of the donations given to his family's philanthropy, Bill Clinton said on Thursday that the Clinton Foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate money.

Mr. Clinton's announcement, which he relayed to foundation employees in a meeting on Thursday, followed the recent release of State Department emails mentioning donors to the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

I've heard a lot of handwaving at this, a lot of "George Bush did it too", a lot of "but the foundation does good work," but I've never heard anyone outside of a video game forum actually say that Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't have control over the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, lol.

[TZucchini]

I introduced that post because that's the first post that I replied to.

Tell, me, and everyone here, with a straight face, that you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton didn't wield enough influence over the foundation that carries her name, to approve or deny a $10 Million donation from a foreign nation. Tell me that's what you actually believe, and then I think you'll find a whole bunch of people willing to tell you what you're missing.

Whether or not you have the ability says nothing about whether or not you should exercise said ability. The Foundation is not some tool Hillary can use to exact political revenge against sovereign nations.

And just to CTR*, the organization didn't adopt her name until 2013. The Saudi donation was accepted in 2008.

[Felya]

Beyonce's fine.

This is better:

https://youtu.be/IloIoGj5Mj0

[Merkava]

Yes. She is not involved in the day to day business of the organization.

Do you have evidence otherwise that would strongly imply that she did? Please show it, if you do. Otherwise I'll file this one away with the dozens of other conspiracy theories about Clinton that have popped up this election.



I'm always interested to know what I'm missing. If you have more detailed info that doesn't come from Infowars or Breitbart as a primary source, by all means please share.

Like I asked earlier, Who ran the foundation when the donation in question was made?

And I'll ask again, do you really think that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the authority over the foundation that carries her name to approve a $10 Million donation from a foreign country? Because I've never heard anyone, in any defense of the Clinton Foundation, no matter how partisan, try to argue that.

- - - Updated - - -

Whether or not you have the ability says nothing about whether or not you should exercise said ability. The Foundation is not some tool Hillary can use to exact political revenge against sovereign nations.

And just to CTR*, the organization didn't adopt her name until 2013. The Saudi donation was accepted in 2008.

The Saudi donation was made public in 2008, but it was made before that. And yes, her and her husband share the same last name, the same last name that's on the foundation.

But what you appear to be saying is that Hillary has the authority to approve donations, but she shouldn't use that authority. Is that correct?

[Edge-]

Like I asked earlier, Who ran the foundation when the donation in question was made?

Which donation? The Saudi royal family has donated multiple times over the decades IIRC, so you'd need to be more specific.

Also, if you're so curious I'm sure you could do exactly what I'll likely do, and google the information yourself : )

And I'll ask again, do you really think that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the authority over the foundation that carries her name to approve a $10 Million donation from a foreign country?

Directly, no. Indirectly, probably. But did she? That's the issue.

Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean you get to treat it like it happened. Come to me with evidence/proof and we'll talk. Otherwise we're engaging in a pointless discussion of "what if's"

[TZucchini]

Now you're saying that William J. Clinton himself wouldn't have the authority to approve a donation from a foreign nation to the William J. Clinton Foundation?

I said I didn't know. I'm skeptical. The organization has a board of directors for a reason. An organization can be named after someone, without that person holding much power over said organization. I don't know the specifics behind the Clinton Foundation. But it doesn't matter much either way.

- - - Updated - - -

The Saudi donation was made public in 2008, but it was made before that. And yes, her and her husband share the same last name, the same last name that's on the foundation.

But what you appear to be saying is that Hillary has the authority to approve donations, but she shouldn't use that authority. Is that correct?

I have no idea whether she has the ability to approve or veto donations. If you'd like to claim that she does, I'm willing to look at the evidence.

If she does have the ability, she should use it only if it's in the best interest of the Foundation.

[Merkava]

Which donation? The Saudi royal family has donated multiple times over the decades IIRC, so you'd need to be more specific.

Also, if you're so curious I'm sure you could do exactly what I'll likely do, and google the information yourself : )



Directly, no. Indirectly, probably. But did she? That's the issue.

Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean you get to treat it like it happened. Come to me with evidence/proof and we'll talk. Otherwise we're engaging in a pointless discussion of "what if's"

I was talking about donations to the Clinton library. I made that clear in the post that you quoted me on. I clarified that again. I'm not curious, I know what I'm talking about. I'm merely trying to get you to read the thread.

So now you are acknowledging that she has the authority to approve $10 Million donations to the foundation that carries her name, but you're trying to say that there's no proof that she did? With all due respect Edge, you're changing your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I said I didn't know. I'm skeptical. The organization has a board of directors for a reason. An organization can be named after someone, without that person holding much power over said organization. I don't know the specifics behind the Clinton Foundation. But it doesn't matter much either way.

- - - Updated - - -



I have no idea whether she has the ability to approve or veto donations. If you'd like to claim that she does, I'm willing to look at the evidence.

If she does have the ability, she should use it only if it's in the best interest of the Foundation.

Lol, what? Bill Clinton himself, personally, asked for donations for his library from members of the Saudi Royal family. This was a big deal back in the 2008 election. Weren't you guys paying attention?

[LaserSharkDFB]

Looks like your Queen really is sick guys. Sorry mates

Is there some new information you could link? Or are you just catching up from the last 20 pages or so?

[Edge-]

So now you are acknowledging that she has the authority to approve $10 Million donations to the foundation that carries her name,

No, I'm saying she may have that authority. I don't actually know for a fact whether she does or not. If you do and can share, I'd be interested in seeing it.

but you're trying to say that there's no proof that she did?

None that I've seen. Please share it if you have it, I'm interested in seeing some evidence one way or another.

With all due respect Edge, you're changing your argument.

No, I believe she didn't have the influence necessary to directly reject the donation, but my opinion doesn't matter as my opinion isn't fact. I'd be interested in learning the underlying facts if you have them.