It's their country, their rules, their religion. NONE of USA's business, except for the oil and gas, for which USA will itself.
Are those official government donations?
Or private citizens in those countries?
I am willing to bet the latter.
If so, you have "this country is horrible, and some people from this horrible country donated money to a charity that helps women and children".
I'm confused.
What exactly are you pointing out here?
Be specific, and please allow me the respect of providing some sources. I like double checking things.
Without a good working definition that everybody can agree on, it is far too easy to talk past each other, and not really say anything.
Personally I think the term is somewhat useless because it is just so, pardon, fuzzy.
It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started. When it began in 1997, the foundation’s main goal was to build the Clinton presidential library, although it left open the option to "engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities" that nonprofits are allowed to do under federal law.
The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million to build the library. (According to the Post, the Saudis gave a similar amount to the George H.W. Bush library.) After the library donation, the Saudis gave very little and stopped giving entirely during the time Clinton was secretary of state. She stepped down in early February 2013.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...on-foundation/
It's not usually fuzzy, I think most people understand neocons in the GOP to be synonymous with hawks in the republican party. Fuzzy is just trying to fuzzy up the term to say Reagan was a neocon. To make what point?...he still hasn't answered.
"Reagan wasn't one of them."
His invasions of Grenada, Panama, his CIA ing around in, destabilizing Central America were clearly neocon military operations to fight democratically elected socialists.
Neocon means generally America preferring HARD military power to control its planetary empire, to grab resources, rather than preferring soft power of economic bullying and diplomacy.
Neocons don't give a about spreading freedom and democracy (that's smokescreen, pablum for naive Americans), care only about America's military/economic empire.
Damn straight, Comrade!
ne·o·con·serv·a·tive
ˌnēōkənˈsərvədiv/
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
noun
1.
a person with neoconservative views.
The original neocons were Cold War liberals who broke to the GOP in the late sixties when the Dems co-opted the tiwar left. Kristol the senior and John Podhoretz were the main propounders, but you could easily include Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn in the definition, so there was never clean partisan definition there.
Reagan partook of elements, but was never a doctrinaire politician. More of a trad Cold Warrior with due deference to career technocrats.
It got fuzzier still with the demise of the USSR.
Fuzzy to start, fuzzy in the middle, and fuzzy now, tbh.
Sometimes I wish tlongII was able to answer simple questions honestly.
What does it say about your worldview that it collapses so easily under modest, honest questioning?
What does it say about your worldview when being dishonest is the only way to maintain it?
If you only knew what my worldview is.
Here is what I do know about you.
Your posting habits are to put things that paint either Replubicans in a good light, or Democrats in a bad light.
What you post generally turns out to be actively misleading, if not outright false. Much of it leaves out information that any good critical thinking person would feel important in reaching a conclusion.
When asked direct questions that might lead reasonable people to the conclusion that your material was misleading, you stop answering them.
When you do post something that requires some reading or understanding, and you are answering questions, you appear not to fully understand some of what you post here.
Reading your material makes me actively wonder why some people feel the need to be misleading, or allow themselves to be misled by unskeptically accepting misleading material as painting a full picture of a topic.
I assume, based on the above that your posts are generally indicative of what and how you think, since I have no reason to believe otherwise.
If your worldview is so superior to that of what you call "liberal", you shouldn't have to be dishonest, IMO. Liberals do believe some stupid at times.
I understand it is fully human to dig your heels in when presented with evidence that contradicts pre-existing beliefs, but that your material is generally so easily dismissed doesnt' seem to bother you, or ever force you to re-think anything that I have ever seen.
I can conclude based on this, that you don't seem to value truth very much.
I like to think you aren't representative of conservatives in general, but given the information bubble so many like to place themselves in, that may be optimistic.
tl;dr
Clinton Foundation confirms gift from Qatar during HRC's time as Sec'y of State:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN12Z2SLThe Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments.
Qatari officials pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton's husband, and sought to meet the former U.S. president in person the following year to present him the check, according to an email from a foundation official to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. The email, among thousands hacked from Podesta's account, was published last month by WikiLeaks.
Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family's globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.
If a new foreign government wished to donate or if an existing foreign-government donor, such as Qatar, wanted to "increase materially" its support of ongoing programs, Clinton promised that the State Department's ethics official would be notified and given a chance to raise any concerns.
Clinton Foundation officials last month declined to confirm the Qatar donation. In response to additional questions, a foundation spokesman, Brian Cookstra, this week said that it accepted the $1 million gift from Qatar, but this did not amount to a "material increase" in the Gulf country's support for the charity. Cookstra declined to say whether Qatari officials received their requested meeting with Bill Clinton.
The State Department has said it has no record of the foundation submitting the Qatar gift for review, and that it was in bent on the foundation to notify the department about donations that needed attention.
So where is the crime? a ing "reporting" crime?
failing to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest (influence peddling) reflects badly on the Clinton Foundation, the State department and its head officer at the time.
it's politically damaging per se: there needn't be any illegality.
Trash's business frauds, business thieving, tax avoidance/evasion, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, bigotry are politically damaging enough to be fatal.
Gonna be hilarious Tue night to watch Hillary grab her "investigators", haters by the balls and rip 'em off.
Probably so.Trash's business frauds, business thieving, tax avoidance/evasion, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, bigotry are politically damaging enough to be fatal.
How will she do that? Comey will probably resign.Gonna be hilarious Tue night to watch Hillary grab her "investigators", haters by the balls and rip 'em off.
She'll replace Comey sooner rather than later.
Obama was ing naive to think he could "reach across the aisle" in 2009, and naive to put a Repug as head of the FBI.
There's going to be some FBI housecleaning well beyond Comey
yep. I wasn't sure what boutons was talking about.
I seldom feel safe assuming. I have better luck asking posters what they mean.
Nah, I dont think she will fire Comey. It would look like a personal vendetta.
He should resign on his own. Or Obama should do the firing being that he hired him.
a good roundup of stories here:
https://medium.com/real-in-other-wor...0e2#.lqmif1jyh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
