Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Endus]

This is the whataboutism that I'm talking about: it doesn't matter what Powell did or didn't do when it comes to discussing Hillary. It is possible to have erred in not investigating Powell. It is also possible it didn't matter for a host of reasons. None of that is relevant since the indictment against Hillary holds water all on its own.

It isn't "whataboutism". Nobody is arguing that Powell should be treated with the same venom and bile as Clinton.

What it does demonstrate is a clear hypocrisy in those who see Clinton's behaviour as criminal and whatnot, and who were and remain completely silent regarding Powell's, when his behaviour was pretty significantly "worse" in the respects that they're talking about with Clinton. It makes it clear that those particular issues are not the source of their antagonism and bile towards Clinton, but merely the wedge they are trying to use to engage in entirely partisan attacks, partisan attacks they'd have no use in engaging with against Powell, as he's in their party.

That's not "whataboutism". That's demonstration clear and obvious hypocrisy, and that those attacking Clinton over her e-mail, or Benghazi, aren't actually concerned centrally about those events on their own merits, but only because Clinton can be slandered through them.

Apparent hypocrisy doesn't actually make you wrong, that's just an informal reworking of the ad hominem fallacy. Even if 10 other Secretaries of State did what Powell and Hillary did and only Hillary was getting the inspection... it still holds water.

If we want to talk about whether Clinton "did anything wrong" in either Benghazi or her e-mail, well, we have a ton of investigations in Benghazi that found nothing to direct at her, and with her e-mail, the investigation also turned up nothing actionable.

So if you're concerned with the facts of these issues, those settle them. She didn't do anything really wrong, certainly nothing actionable, and the matters are over. And yet, they keep getting dragged up, so yes, we're going to talk about the motives of those who do so. Because the circumstances of both issues are settled, and there's nothing appreciable there.

[Breccia]

so let's say all of that is right, why require a donation to the Clinton foundation rather than to her campaign or some other organization where she can use the money?

And also...why would she intentionally put bribe money in the Clinton Foundation, then release the donor list to the public? Wouldn't that be literally asking to get caught? Incidentally, has the Trump foundation released its donor list? I honestly don't know. I didn't have a lot of luck finding it. Hell, they can't even seem to get the recipient list right.

[Endus]

Endus missed the point by a mile, as do many of those still trying to chime in on it later... so congratulations on being unable to read at all? /clap

Don't mistake my refusal to help you continue to derail the thread with any kind of acknowledgement that your claims had any merit, because they didn't.

[LaserSharkDFB]

so let's say all of that is right, why require a donation to the Clinton foundation rather than to her campaign or some other organization where she can use the money?

Yeah. That's still my question that wasn't really answered. Fine, donations buy access and obviously can't go straight to her, but what's in it for the Clintons? What's so corrupt about accepting money that goes to charitable deeds and you can't touch? Again, not arguing, just puzzled.

[Wells]

Yeah. That's still my question that wasn't really answered. Fine, donations buy access and obviously can't go straight to her, but what's in it for the Clintons? What's so corrupt about accepting money that goes to charitable deeds and you can't touch? Again, not arguing, just puzzled.

Nothing in particular, its just the the Clintons have always had a much lower bar for what qualifies as a serious scandal.

[Fasc]

It isn't "whataboutism". Nobody is arguing that Powell should be treated with the same venom and bile as Clinton.

So you don't understand "whataboutism"... okay.

What it does demonstrate is a clear hypocrisy in those who see Clinton's behaviour as criminal and whatnot, and who were and remain completely silent regarding Powell's, when his behaviour was pretty significantly "worse" in the respects that they're talking about with Clinton. It makes it clear that those particular issues are not the source of their antagonism and bile towards Clinton, but merely the wedge they are trying to use to engage in entirely partisan attacks, partisan attacks they'd have no use in engaging with against Powell, as he's in their party.

This is exactly what "whataboutism" actually is: trying to highlight a hypocrisy to dissuade discussion from Hillary's actions. The Republicans can be complete and total jerk hypocrites and STILL rightfully accuse and investigate Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified information. That they are hypocrites has no bearing whatsoever. That they stand to gain from her downfall or bad press has no bearing whatsoever. These things aren't mutually exclusive terms yet you treat them as if they are and that's why you're engaging in fallacious "whataboutism"

That's not "whataboutism". That's demonstration clear and obvious hypocrisy, and that those attacking Clinton over her e-mail, or Benghazi, aren't actually concerned centrally about those events on their own merits, but only because Clinton can be slandered through them.

Don't crystal ball your opposition. If you want this accusation to hold any water you have to prove the mishandling of classified information violates no statutes or common law and dismiss that claim specifically and THEN you can go down the speculative route of why people are REALLY interested. Until you do that... you're deflecting disingenuously. /shrug

If we want to talk about whether Clinton "did anything wrong" in either Benghazi or her e-mail, well, we have a ton of investigations in Benghazi that found nothing to direct at her, and with her e-mail, the investigation also turned up nothing actionable.

So if you're concerned with the facts of these issues, those settle them. She didn't do anything really wrong, certainly nothing actionable, and the matters are over. And yet, they keep getting dragged up, so yes, we're going to talk about the motives of those who do so. Because the circumstances of both issues are settled, and there's nothing appreciable there.

Yes, because if someone official says "no big deal" they cannot be wrong. Brock Turner really dindu nuffin and George Zimmerman was never wrong. Benghazi investigations did turn over damning information but it being actionable by Congress is different from being damning in and of itself. Mishandling classified information was never in question, Comey simply punted to Lynch about whether or not it could be prosecuted and everyone just sorta shrugged. If that's your foundation... /snicker

Sure thing.

[jakeic]

Yeah. That's still my question that wasn't really answered. Fine, donations buy access and obviously can't go straight to her, but what's in it for the Clintons? What's so corrupt about accepting money that goes to charitable deeds and you can't touch? Again, not arguing, just puzzled.

and when she was secretary she had no inclination that she would try to run for president again in 2016?

[Fasc]

Don't mistake my refusal to help you continue to derail the thread with any kind of acknowledgement that your claims had any merit, because they didn't.

They absolutely did by your insistence that when I start a hypothetical out as:

Assume A --> B

And your respond with a litany of references as to why A doesn't lead to B (rather than cannot, as if words have fixed meanings and interpretations), you not only miss the point but demonstrate clearly you cannot think logically about anything, or have so little practice as to be unable to out of pure inexperience. You and several others made the exact same error in approaching the list despite others understanding, disagreeing in part and agreeing in part, and us having a valid discussion.

Read what is there instead of desperately trying to disprove for your side, it'll do you a world of good.

[Damajin]

so let's say all of that is right, why require a donation to the Clinton foundation rather than to her campaign or some other organization where she can use the money?

Because the Foundation is an image fluff front, to maintain the deniability of any type of wrongdoing. A direct donation to her campaign would be an outright admittance of pay for play, as the money would be directly used to prop her up instead of being funneled through the Foundation to her family, friends and staffers who can then make their own direct donations to her campaign so she ends up with the money anyway, as do those she favors and wants to reward. Donating to the Foundation lets both Hillary and the donors claim moral high ground while buttering their bread and their chosen recipients.

Pretty standard deal in the upper echelons of high dollar charities, actually. All these big shots have charities or foundations to move cash around, get tax breaks, buff up their resume and people cred while buying influence and favors from each other. Everyone involved gets their cut, everyone gets to look good in the public eye while they're up to no good.

[jakeic]

So you don't understand "whataboutism"...

So you're outraged at Colin Powell?

[Wells]

Did you just say the Clinton Foundation is a "fluff front"?

Do you have any evidence that the Clintons are siphoning off Foundation money for their own pockets?

[Damajin]

Yeah. That's still my question that wasn't really answered. Fine, donations buy access and obviously can't go straight to her, but what's in it for the Clintons? What's so corrupt about accepting money that goes to charitable deeds and you can't touch? Again, not arguing, just puzzled.

The money can't go straight to her but still makes its' way there, unless you think that those high dollar administrators and employees of the Foundation aren't kicking a good chunk of their salary towards her election, also she gets a taste of the Foundation cash anyway since it pays for all the chartered flights she takes, among other stuff. She's not paying that out of her own pocket.

[Wells]

To be clear here, the Clinton Foundation has a higher rating than the Red Cross.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you're confused and meant to be writing all these things about the Trump Foundation? That's the family slush fund.

[LaserSharkDFB]

and when she was secretary she had no inclination that she would try to run for president again in 2016?

...what? /10char

The money can't go straight to her but still makes its' way there, unless you think that those high dollar administrators and employees of the Foundation aren't kicking a good chunk of their salary towards her election, also she gets a taste of the Foundation cash anyway since it pays for all the chartered flights she takes, among other stuff. She's not paying that out of her own pocket.

Oh, okay, so this is one of those 'I have absolutely no proof but come on, you know she's doing something' type of things? The type of thing where suspicion is as good as evidence? Which is absolutely contrary to our legal system and is completely irrational? That type of thing?

Just want to be sure here.

[infinitemeridian]

Hillary was found not guilty end of story. No matter how guilty she may be to you, she was tried by the experts and found not guilty. Get over it.

[Fasc]

So you're outraged at Colin Powell?

Why do people respond in ways that makes me believe you have no clue what you're talking about? I have zero feelings towards Colin Powell as he is irrelevant to any discussion of wrongdoing on Clinton's part. If we want to make a separate thread about Colin Powell's sins we can, but he matters not one iota in this context.

Seriously: If you don't understand what fallacies are at play with "whataboutism" please read up on them before responding like this. One can be critical (I'm not outraged about anything as Hillary is largely a boring individual) of one person while not critical of another.

[jakeic]

...what? /10char

just adding on more things about the assertion that don't make a lot of sense.

[Damajin]

To be clear here, the Clinton Foundation has a higher rating than the Red Cross.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you're confused and meant to be writing all these things about the Trump Foundation? That's the family slush fund.

Nah, I'm definitely not confused. The expenditures of the Clinton Foundation was discussed quite a few pages back, it's pretty hard to see it as anything other than a slush fund when less than a fifth of all donations go to actual charity concerns and the bulk is administration fees, payroll, travel expenses for all those chartered flights, etc. They spend more on chartered flights that get billed to the Foundation than they do on charity, and you think it's NOT a slush fund for them, their family/friends/associates? Jokes on you man.

You're acting like I don't think Trump is a scam artist. I'm quite sure you can find tons of shit on him as well. This is the Hillary thread, and you can find 40 years of shit on that hag and all the apologists and blank staring around the issue of what she's done, does and is doing is worth highlighting and addressing. If you want to trash Trump, or if I do there's another thread for that.

[Fasc]

Hillary was found not guilty end of story. No matter how guilty she may be to you, she was tried by the experts and found not guilty. Get over it.

Like OJ! What a cuddle bear he was...

[Wells]

Nah, I'm definitely not confused. The expenditures of the Clinton Foundation was discussed quite a few pages back, it's pretty hard to see it as anything other than a slush fund

Again, they are a highly rated charity.

when less than a fifth of all donations go to actual charity concerns and the bulk is administration fees, payroll, travel expenses for all those chartered flights, etc.

Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/whe...tion-money-go/

Is that more or less than the percentage you're full of shit? I think less.