Documents show that the Trump company spent a minimum of $68,000 for its 1998 foray into Cuba at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval. But the company did not spend the money directly. Instead, with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm called Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp. Once the business consultants traveled to the island and incurred the expenses for the venture, Seven Arrows instructed senior officers with Trump’s company—then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts—how to make it appear legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.
It gets even better - the Trump Campaign, predictably, denied it. So in the second case of it in the last few weeks, the journalists responsible have started releasing some of the primary documentation that proves the whole thing.
She's said her share of Fox bullshit, but lately she does seem to be one of the most sane ones there.
Yeah, from 6:16 on, she goes back into Fox mode.
It's fascinating how quickly she had to reel it back in that video, so that she can pander to her Conservative viewership.
I wonder if she actually believes that Trump is good on the equal-opportunity hiring front (he's obviously not), or if she had to hold back under the pressure that she'd be cut off by the Trump campaign for pushing further.
A lot of people say they'll vote for her, but "don't like her."
I fucking love Hillary Clinton. I honestly want her to be president. When she's on fire, she's a white hot sun.
Politically, she is too moderate/conservative for my tastes. However, I have no issues with her character, find her to be no more or less "trustworthy" than most other career politicians, respect her extreme intelligence, appreciate her high degree of competency, am comforted by her ability to make reasonable compromises, enjoy her presence on the public stage, and find her to be quite funny, witty, and biting. I will gladly vote for her in this election.
It's a matter of perspective. I too find her no more or less trustworthy than most other career politicians, but that makes me fear her extreme intelligence and high degree of competency.
It's a matter of perspective. I too find her no more or less trustworthy than most other career politicians, but that makes me fear her extreme intelligence and high degree of competency.
More than you would fear a career politician or average or below average level of intelligence/competency?
Day 1 presidency: I can't log into my twitter. It's the Chinese! Get em!
Day 2:
And on the pedestal these words appear: " I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?"
A lot of people say they'll vote for her, but "don't like her."
I fucking love Hillary Clinton. I honestly want her to be president. When she's on fire, she's a white hot sun.
However, I have no issues with her character, find her to be no more or less "trustworthy" than most other career politicians, respect her extreme intelligence, appreciate her high degree of competency, am comforted by her ability to make reasonable compromises, enjoy her presence on the public stage, and find her to be quite funny, witty, and biting.
I just don't agree with her on all issues, for example she's too light on disarming police, see the debates. I'll begrudgingly vote for her as someone who I mostly but not completely agree with.
It's a matter of perspective. I too find her no more or less trustworthy than most other career politicians, but that makes me fear her extreme intelligence and high degree of competency.
More than you would fear a career politician or average or below average level of intelligence/competency?
Yes because I have less faith in an incompetant politician to be able to do what he says he will.
It's a matter of perspective. I too find her no more or less trustworthy than most other career politicians, but that makes me fear her extreme intelligence and high degree of competency.
More than you would fear a career politician or average or below average level of intelligence/competency?
Yes because I have less faith in an incompetant politician to be able to do what he says he will.
Have you seen state legislatures? Republicans hold more of them and dumb shit happens all the time.
It's a matter of perspective. I too find her no more or less trustworthy than most other career politicians, but that makes me fear her extreme intelligence and high degree of competency.
More than you would fear a career politician or average or below average level of intelligence/competency?
Yes because I have less faith in an incompetant politician to be able to do what he says he will.
Have you seen state legislatures? Republicans hold more of them and dumb shit happens all the time.
Her entire foreign policy looks like Vietnam. This is also where the President is most able to act independent of Congress, and where Clinton has most recently proved her capability.
I believe that Greg's main concern with Hillary has been her stance on Syria. I remember that we had a back and forth about it a few pages back, and (correct me if I'm wrong Greg) he believes that Hillary's approach to dealing with Assad and ISIS will lock the US into another pointless, unwinnable war like Vietnam.
I don't agree with everything in this song, but in a cycle where the best option is Hillary Clinton, lines like "there's no ballot we can cast to set us free" feel extra true.
Do you really find Former Secretary of State Clinton that offensive and oppressive? If so, why?
Her aggressive foreign policy and her commitment to expanding government surveillance. She acts and sounds very Nixonian in those regards.
What specific policies or statements? I do not mean this as a challenge; I am genuinely interested.
Her plan to take on ISIS sounds frighteningly like the preamble to Vietnam. It could work, but at the debates when pressed to ask what she would do if it failed she reiterated her first plan. I don't want us in another land war in Asia, and I can easily see her going that route as plan B. For the spying, I was really disturbed by a statement after Trump said he would shut down parts of the internet. My google fu is failing me for sourcing this, but it's somewhere deep in this thread. She wanted to expand surveillance and used a frightening tone about the freedom of speech concerns, something along the lines of "of course there will be freedom of speech concerns, yada yada..."
There's also a lot of issues she's been vague or unclear about but Bernie had really pressed (like marijuana regulation), but I can't get too mad about her not answering a question no one's pressed her on.
I am just looking for more details than you have provided. I am excited that someone is actually beginning to articulate a valid reason why they question her leadership!
What specifically about her plan has you concerned?
Edit: I am tired of generalities. This thread, like the election itself, has offered minimal substance. I am genuinely excited to discuss policy in detail. ^_^
It's her inability to address that advisers and financial aid haven't succeeded in the past. When pressed on what to do if the same policies that brought us against the Viet Cong and the Taliban turn out like they have in the past, she would just reiterate her plan to send advisers and financial aid. I understand she can't have a concrete plan B but some general strategies would be more comforting than repeating "this thing that has never worked before will work". She doesn't have a good track record in my book either. As Secretary of State she didn't seem troubled sending drone strikes without due process. She advanced our presence in the Middle East putting troops on the ground. Sure, they weren't "combatants", but as any Vietnam veteran will tell you that doesn't matter, they'll be fighting anyway. Unlike some of her disappointingly mild domestic policies, there isn't enough political capital in this issue for me to expect she would do anything less than what she has done before.
I like to speak in generalizations because talking in depth about state sponsored killing is a little emotionally charged, y'know?
There are at least two practical reasons why she isn't saying something concrete (probably):
1. Hillary doesn't want to step on Obama's toes while he's attempting to contain and control the situation. 2. Hillary doesn't want to give Putin and Assad any idea on what she will do if elected.
I understand she can't have a concrete plan B but some general strategies would be more comforting than repeating "this thing that has never worked before will work".
I don't expect a detailed plan. I expect some tenets that her plan B would follow.
Dream: Emphasizing civilian aid as much as or more than military aid. If we defeat ISIS, we need to set up a proper country that can defend itself if/when another violent insurrection occurs. Something like Reconstruction or the Marshall Plan.
Reality: Just admit she'll put troops on the ground and start another land war in Asia.
Comments
I wonder if she actually believes that Trump is good on the equal-opportunity hiring front (he's obviously not), or if she had to hold back under the pressure that she'd be cut off by the Trump campaign for pushing further.
One can hope.
God. Damn.
I fucking love Hillary Clinton. I honestly want her to be president. When she's on fire, she's a white hot sun.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307
TL;DR Government IT was a mess from 2008-2013.
Day 1 presidency: I can't log into my twitter. It's the Chinese! Get em!
Day 2:
And on the pedestal these words appear: " I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?"
Edit: Yep, here we go.
What specifically about her plan has you concerned?
Edit: I am tired of generalities. This thread, like the election itself, has offered minimal substance. I am genuinely excited to discuss policy in detail. ^_^
I like to speak in generalizations because talking in depth about state sponsored killing is a little emotionally charged, y'know?
1. Hillary doesn't want to step on Obama's toes while he's attempting to contain and control the situation.
2. Hillary doesn't want to give Putin and Assad any idea on what she will do if elected.
Reality: Just admit she'll put troops on the ground and start another land war in Asia.