Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But one of those was pure speculation, while the other has some serious evidence of past behavior supporting it.
Cute, but wrong.
I'm sure you have some evidence of this? You know, that isn't just partisans speculating about it?
Quote:
Because without that exact, specific set of events there is no corruption or influence pedaling. Again; cute, but wrong.
No. But that's the exact specific set of events we know has happened with Clinton. If you believe that a similarly corrupt method was utilized by Bush, then by all means provide some details. Cause all I'm hearing is you insisting that something exists, but you can't say what it was, how it happened, or frankly anything other than said insistence.
Which leaves us with speculation and innuendo on one side, and hard evidence on the other. Just as I said initially.
Quote:
Cuter and cuter. And wronger and wronger.
Not wrong at all. It's well documented fact that Cheney did all he was required to do by law (and quite a bit more) to avoid even the perception that his actions might be influenced by his holdings. Despite that, he still got attacked for it for years. What exactly do you think he should have done differently? I'm honestly curious. And once again, there's no evidence that he took any actions as a result either. Whereas we have direct evidence linking payments to the Clinton foundation and meetings being set up between the payees and various people in our government. That's a direct quid pro quo process. And a somewhat blatant one.
Quote:
The worst Halliburton did, though was take billions of dollars meant for reconstruction, fail to build, well anything they were supposed to and still end up with massive profits. With, y'know, taxpayer money.
We can debate how efficient they were as a contractor, but um... they were contracted to do that work. They did it. There's nothing unusual or nefarious here. You may as well arbitrarily pick any business with a government contract and you could level the same allegations at them.
Quote:
My concerns lean more toward theft and child rape but I guess my priorities are all messed up, right?
So basically that he might be just like Bill Clinton?
Quote:
So in a side-by-side comparison between the Clinton charity and the Trump charity, you think the Trump one is the more honest, transparent and harmless one? That's...scary.
Did donations to the Trump charity provide donors access and influence to taxpayer funded government resources? No, right? So yeah, in the context of "which foundation presents more of a problem if the person associated with it sits in the oval office", I'm going to have to go with the one that's already been used for influence peddling as the bigger concern.
Trumps problems as a politician stem from his own personality and general dislike. But we don't actually have any information at all about how he'd actually do at making governing decisions (which itself can be quite scary). Clinton's are more directly related to her actual past political actions and decisions. It's literally the devil you know against the devil you don't know. We know that with Clinton we'll get a corrupt government that is subject more to the favors given and received than any rational global political reality. We know that as a result, US interests and power around the globe will almost certainly decrease, and in that vacuum we'll see more troubles like we've seen with Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, and ISIS under Obama. It'll be the same foreign policy, although possibly worse. Obama doesn't engage because he ideologically is opposed to the US "meddling". Clinton will engage incorrectly because the right players bought her favor and the wrong ones didn't.
Which is scary as hell.