Hard federal cutoffs or even phased in limits don't make a great deal of sense given massive variance in cost of living across the country.

I honestly don't give a shit because I'll never have kids anyway and she'll never even really attempt to implement this.

8/23/2016 7:41:18 PM

If only there was a simple solution to the "where to put the cutoff" problem...

[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 7:48 PM. Reason : if only there were examples of success elsewhere and we didn't have to be the pioneers of education]

8/23/2016 7:47:44 PM

More on the Clinton Foundation money scandal
https://www.facebook.com/topic/Bahrain/104025726301539

This guy has a very matter-of-fact way of explaining it away:
https://www.facebook.com/andrew.porter.501/posts/10208356303840139

8/23/2016 9:51:18 PM

Cool. First two things I saw on the first link was a FB post from Pamela Geller and then Mike Huckabee..

8/24/2016 6:24:29 AM

Biggest problem with that number is she appears to be repeating Obama's early mistakes of approaching Congress with an already compromised position. You have to go for broke from the outset or you just get this,

8/24/2016 9:23:48 AM

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting

Quote :

"According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions. Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom."

Oh look, another Clinton "scandal" that turns out to be a giant nothing-burger. You gotta give the right credit though, their decades long crusade to convince us that an ambitious woman must be untrustworthy has worked wonders.

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2016 12:19:59 PM

I would argue there was a lot of unethical behavior. But no illegal behavior.

And those wanting the Foundation shut down are missing the forest for the trees.

She does need to imediately disassociate herself from it though.

8/24/2016 12:23:50 PM

Define "unethical behavior". If you mean trading donations for access, sure, but that's the foundation Washington DC has been built on since inception. And there's scant evidence that even happened in this case, as that Vox article notes,

Quote :

"The real news here ought to be just the opposite: Donors to the Clinton Foundation may believe they are buying Hillary Clinton’s political allegiance, but the reality is that they are not. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is someone, somewhere whom Clinton met with whom she wouldn’t have met with had that person not been a Clinton donor of some kind. But what we know is that despite very intensive media scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation, we don’t have hard evidence of any kind of corrupt activity. That’s the story."

8/24/2016 12:31:51 PM

Just because it's common practice doesn't make it any more ethical.

The fact of the matter is, even though there is nothing earth-shattering in that report, it was far easier to gain access to her if you were a donor. That is not even a question.

Now of evidence came out that she was granting FAVORS to people that would be a legal issue.

8/24/2016 12:35:09 PM

But that's just the thing, there is no evidence. Not just with this "scandal", but just about every accusation leveled at the Clintons since they became a household name. Congressional committees, law enforcements agencies, special prosecutors, and outside groups have spent untold dollars investigating them and the only thing they have to show for it is a cum stained blue dress.

8/24/2016 12:46:00 PM

I was led to believe that the MSM treats her with kid gloves, though

8/24/2016 12:51:10 PM

Corruption can only occur when a direct quid pro quo can be shown. Ingratiation and access cannot be construed as corruption and anyone that disagrees hates free speech and the constitution.

-the (former) conservative majority in Their Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings

8/24/2016 1:33:27 PM

Quote :

"Corruption can only occur when a direct quid pro quo can be shown"

do wat?

that would just mean you got caught. this graphic about the uranium deal looks shady as hell.

http://nyti.ms/1DkClLQ

also find it crazy that some of same people that dont want corporations to buy ads to influence politics are fine with them just dumping it straight into the candidates bank account

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 2:53 PM. Reason : r]

8/24/2016 2:51:16 PM

^ don't ask me, read the McCutcheon ruling and ask the conservatives on the Supreme Court.




Edit-

Limiting acts or money exchanges that "seem" like corruption is too restrictive of our first amendment rights, because money is speech. Only a direct exchange of money for favors can be considered corruption and therefore made illegal (because the government has a compelling interest in limiting corruption. That's my interpretation.

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 3:08 PM. Reason : its fucked up, I know.]

8/24/2016 2:53:11 PM

Wait, do people really think that the Clintons can just withdraw money from the Foundation as if it were some sort of personal checking account? Holy shit, now I get it. You're all just a bunch of fucking idiots.

8/24/2016 3:18:58 PM

^ beatsunc laps up every Clinton conspiracy theory with every bit of intensity as B4C stalking NCSU girls on Facebook.

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 3:28 PM. Reason : and is prone to WILD exaggeration when trying to prove hypocrisy that's usually not there. see above.]

8/24/2016 3:27:15 PM

^^I think what most people take issue with is the foundation's huge allotment to "administrative costs." And I'm not sure if we've seen a complete breakdown of what those costs entail.

As far as the health conspiracy goes, I mean when you start hitting the ages that these candidates are in, you're not going to be in tip top health. What, are we expecting our candidates to have the physical constitutions of Michael Phelps or Simone Biles? Just make sure these candidates have solid VP's.

The email scandal? Sure I believe she had that set up to skirt the rules. Do I believe she purposefully sent classified info? No. Do I believe she should still be punished somehow? Yes.

This thing with Pay to Play for the State Department? There just isn't enough information there to say one way or the other.

8/24/2016 3:39:49 PM

It's just amazing to me that the successful operation of a charitable organization which has helped millions of people around the world has somehow been spun into a vehicle for corruption at the highest levels of government. If the left were even half this good at bullshit mongering, the Republican party would no longer exist.

8/24/2016 4:11:22 PM

Quote :

"As far as the health conspiracy goes, I mean when you start hitting the ages that these candidates are in, you're not going to be in tip top health. What, are we expecting our candidates to have the physical constitutions of Michael Phelps or Simone Biles?"

Trump is older than Clinton, yet she's a sane enough person to not bring up the health/age of her opponent.

I know you're gonna now say you don't buy into the conspiracy theory at all, but your post reads like you're an apologist for it.

8/24/2016 5:08:53 PM

Quote :

"But that's just the thing, there is no evidence. "

Well there's the bit about how she personally followed up on a big donor's visa issue. An issue that we will never know about since State redacted the name.

Interesting fact about that: the donor, Wall St billionaire Stephen Schwartzman, compared Obama to Hitler. Obama, as in Hillarys boss.

And there could be more evidence, but unfortunately State and Clinton stonewall every evidence request, and the AP had to sue for the incomplete records that they did get.

8/24/2016 8:38:25 PM

Quote :

"I know you're gonna now say you don't buy into the conspiracy theory at all, but your post reads like you're an apologist for it. "

You're blinded by your prejudice against me and how you think I lean. I give no credence to the health conspiracy, and the pictures of her needing help have all been debunked. How in the hell do you get "apologist" from my post?

8/24/2016 10:09:08 PM

8/25/2016 12:57:19 AM

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00262

trump wants to build the wall obama and clinton passed

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 2:05 AM. Reason : lol ]

8/25/2016 2:03:56 AM

Quote :

"You're blinded by your prejudice against me and how you think I lean. I give no credence to the health conspiracy, and the pictures of her needing help have all been debunked. How in the hell do you get "apologist" from my post?"

I mean, you posted this:

Quote :

"As far as the health conspiracy goes, I mean when you start hitting the ages that these candidates are in, you're not going to be in tip top health. What, are we expecting our candidates to have the physical constitutions of Michael Phelps or Simone Biles? Just make sure these candidates have solid VP's."

you literally brought up age, fitness, and a need for "solid VP's"

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 2:26 AM. Reason : how I think you lean? is it supposed to be a secret]

8/25/2016 2:18:53 AM

I brought it up, but as a non-issue. How many sitting presidents have we had that croaked from natural causes? How many in our lifetime? Ok. It's a non-issue. Stop forcing my comments into the anti-Hillary, pro-conspiracy group. I'm not one of those people. It's true I'm not a Hillary fan, but not because of any of the stupid conspiracies out there right now.

Back to my college payment issue, moron said this:

Quote :

"LOL, this reads like a joke. I think you're right to observe a hard cut off at 125k doesn't make sense, but it's equally senseless to set the cut off at 250k, for the same reason and more. A combined income of 250k is into upper class, but that's besides the point... The proper solution is not to make a hard cut off at 125, but to phase out the benefit gradually probably reaching 125k. The median household income in the US is around $55k, not sure what the standard deviation is. But 125k seems like a reasonable number for the benefit to taper off. Although i'd (perhaps naively) argue that anyone that can make the grade gets the same subsidy, with k-12 students from disadvantaged backgrounds getting funding for more social/educational support to keep them on a level playing field. "

I don't understand why you would think that is a joke. I guess if you try to compare a household of 125 to that of 55, then I guess maybe it sounds like a huge discrepancy, but consider the tax burden that the family of 125k is already paying vs the taxes being paid by the family of 55k. And this plan just seems like it will increase that tax burden even further.

8/25/2016 8:51:49 AM

Quote :

"I think what most people take issue with is the foundation's huge allotment to "administrative costs." And I'm not sure if we've seen a complete breakdown of what those costs entail."

Those people are ignorant.

Unreasonably high administrative costs are a problem throughout the international development and charity world -- I've known organizations who demand 40% or more of project funds go to HQ for that. Charity Watch says that the Clinton Foundation puts 87.2% of funding to its programs, which is actually really good.

And the Clinton Foundation does some good work. It's held in pretty high regard in that community.

8/25/2016 9:16:00 AM

Here's a meme, I don't know where the information comes from or how accurate it is....

8/25/2016 1:09:55 PM

Quote :

"trump wants to build the wall obama and clinton passed"

dude whatever reddit you're pullling your bullshit from these days is letting you down.

Quote :

"Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, within 18 months of enactment of this Act, to take appropriate actions to achieve operational control over U.S. international land and maritime borders, including: (1) systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry and facilitate border access by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers."

One would think if the bill was intended to build a 2,000 mile long wall, it would mention that. the physical portion of this bill was aimed at that bolded part up there. it did call for building portions of fence (for example, "the Secretary shall ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008") but nothing like this bullshit trump is pushing

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2016 1:29:00 PM

Quote :

"I brought it up, but as a non-issue."

it would have been much easier to say it's a non-issue than giving reasons why the conspiracy exists

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2016 1:31:44 PM

Quote :

"I don't know where the information comes from"

Hmmm how could one identify the source on a graphic...hmmm

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 1:34 PM. Reason : goalielax got Earled]

8/25/2016 1:32:06 PM

I don't subscribe to the theory that Earl's bullshit should be left without response

8/25/2016 1:39:39 PM

It's not a theory.

8/25/2016 1:47:51 PM

countdown until beatsunc or kdogg(c) posts the video of the dude with the "auto-injector pin" for clinton's "seizures"

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 3:12 PM. Reason : i guess it would actually be pen, don't care]

8/25/2016 3:11:32 PM

This thread, as well as the Trump thread, can server as a microcosm of American politics in 2016. We're all so caught up in sensationalism and faux reporting that we're being distracted from the real issues and the platforms on which these candidates stand.

Like it or not, buffoon or not, Trump has a (small) chance of beating Hillary. So tell me, convince me, why I should vote for Hillary over Johnson. So far, all I've really gotten from her is her college payment plan which I've already harped on, and that's about it.

If Hillary wants to convince me to vote for her, she needs to some pressers, get out there and tell me about her ideas. I don't want to hear her or her campaign tell me how horrible Trump is - I already have a good idea. Tell me how horrible you're NOT going to be.

That is one of my biggest issues with her right now. I see no enthusiasm for the job. Her speeches are flat and uninspiring. Sure they're great when compared to the alternative, but I'm not interested in the alternative.

So let's stop bitching about whatever you think she's done in her past that is unscrupulous, and start talking policy.

8/25/2016 3:22:46 PM

^Supposedly her policy and plans are all over her webpage and other released documents. She has done little past that because . . . well because Trump has been doing everything else for her. She doesn't need buzzworthy social media videos because Trump already has them, and they are as good a campaign video for her as any other.

If nothing else, the Clinton machine is cool and calculated. They do not make any unnecessary movements; that, unfortunately, means losing certain voters who just want to see more of Clinton. This is a calculated move as she is already in such a lead that she doesn't need to go after those voters. If Johnson starts picking up steam to play spoiler with a more central establishment platform, the Clinton machine will shift.

Truthfully, I do not blame Clinton. Republicans have been trying to derail her for years and they look for any excuse. Benghazi didn't stick, but it led to the email "scandal", which is a complete overblown distraction at best. She limits what she says, she gives them less to work with. Their current talking points are that she doesn't speak publicly much, and that she looks old and unhealthy. That's a desperation Hail Mary if I ever saw one. She limits their current criticism to that, and it all down hill from here.

8/25/2016 4:07:19 PM

I'd be interested to know how long voters have actually cared about a politician conducting a press conference.

I understand why the press is on her about it, but the general public?

the most noteworthy press conference the President had was when he came out in a tan suit.

and press conferences aren't for explaining a politicians ideas. that's what a stump speech is for.

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2016 4:22:44 PM

If Hillary really wanted to get her policies through, she would be using this excellent opportunity to stump for Senate and House candidates, and tying their Republican opponents directly to Trump. They should be paying a painful price for this colossal blunder.

Instead it's like she's letting the so-called moderate Republicans off the hook by saying the GOP has been taken over by the alt-right, and Trump is an alt-right candidate. No. Trump is a fucking Republican and the result of decades of dog whistle bigotry by the party as a whole.

8/25/2016 4:35:44 PM

I think she's going to wait and see if more of them yank their endorsements. Right now the conventional thinking is it will hurt them more with their base than it will help them with the center if they divorce themselves from Trump entirely. If and when that calculation changes for them, she can nail them for being cowards and only changing their minds when the polls did. Right now they can always say they were just supporting the party and a lot of their base would forgive them for it.

8/25/2016 6:50:58 PM

http://www.wral.com/us-clinton-calendars-won-t-be-released-until-after-election/15965319/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Seven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won't finish the job before Election Day. The AP first asked for Clinton's calendars in 2010 and again in 2013. It then sued the State Department in federal court to obtain the detailed schedules, and the department so far has provided about half of them under court order. "

[Edited on August 29, 2016 at 9:22 AM. Reason : d]

8/29/2016 9:20:09 AM

are you mad about that or are you mad because the first 2 years that came out last week revealed absolutely nothing?

8/29/2016 9:48:02 AM

Quote :

"Crooked Hillary's brainpower is highly overrated.Probably why her decision making is so bad or, as stated by Bernie S, she has BAD JUDGEMENT"

Compelling

[Edited on August 29, 2016 at 9:51 AM. Reason : X]

8/29/2016 9:51:22 AM

^^ disgusting how the state dept thinks the FOIA doesn't apply to them. the released schedules showed how access to state dept was for sale. this is of course it not news, everyone knows thats just how it works. not should why they are ok with it though

8/29/2016 10:17:21 AM

Quote :

"the released schedules showed how access to state dept was for sale."

Do they now?

8/29/2016 10:21:44 AM

I am not sure why everyone continues to argue Hillary is going to win she doesn't even have to really try at this point. We need to start talking about how we are going to adapt to her for the next 4 years until we can figure out another option.

8/29/2016 10:22:54 AM

Quote :

"she doesn't even have to really try at this point."

Not sure I'd go that far. There's plenty of time left, and no doubt there will be an October surprises.

8/29/2016 10:26:56 AM

What is there to adapt to? She will be treated exactly the same as Hussein Obama.

8/29/2016 10:36:45 AM

Quote :

"What is there to adapt to? She will be treatedact exactly the same as Hussein Obama."

8/29/2016 10:38:05 AM

Quote :

"the released schedules showed how access to state dept was for sale"

lol nah

8/29/2016 10:40:42 AM

I mean everyone knows that Hillary is a terrible person and has clearly done some shady and corrupt things over her life and lies constantly about said things, but I am not sure what kinda surprise could derail her enough to let Trump win. I do agree though I guess adapt wasn't the right word their I guess "deal with it" is probably the better phrase. Basically this 4 year cycle became a waste once it became Hillary vs. Trump so we just need to deal with it for four years and hope America can contemplate just what happened this time and fix it in 4 years... although after seeing how this went I don't have great hope going forward since we have proven our country is mostly full of morons.

8/29/2016 10:41:40 AM

Quote :

"I mean everyone knows that Hillary is a terrible person and has clearly done some shady and corrupt things over her life and lies constantly about said things"

such as?

8/29/2016 10:47:37 AM