General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBy accepting HRC's appearance of conflict issues
And insisting there's nothing at all problematic with accepting large sums from corporations both personally and for the Clinton Foundation for speeches given to corporations who are lobbying government, Democrats are forfeiting the right to effectively criticize republicans who do the same thing .
No one in politics has taken this to the extremes that both Clinton's have. Not the bushes or anyone else, because it's taken place while HRC is still in Politics.
If you believe that big corporate money is a problem in our elections and in our political system, this is not a good thing.
Democrats are bestowing their seal of approval on practices that could very, very easily lead to massive corruption. Ask yourself this; would you be comfortable with a republican SoS, planning a run for the presidency, benefiting from corporations in the same way as Clinton has? You may trust Clinton not to be influenced by the access of special interests such as big banks, but do you trust republicans?
Both Bill and Hillary have histories of walking right up to the ethical line. Many of these instances, like the Foundation accepting donations from the governments of foreign countries, while HRC was SoS, set a bad precedent. By saying there's no problem with doing that, Democrats are saying that the appearance of conflict is not a problem.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Period.
cali
(114,904 posts)
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Casting off our strongest candidate, an extremely popular candidate according to all the polls, because we're afraid of the "appearance" of conflict of issues is a way of unilaterally disarming.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And that makes taking corporate money acceptable because they all do it.
That is how corruption is normalized...first they make it a game and then they convince you that you have to play it.
If the cycle is not stopped we might as well accept an oligarchy as our government and quit kidding ourselves.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)as First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State.
Many fewer people are aware of the Senator from Vermont, and his determination to stick with the "socialist" label will hurt him with many who don't already know him.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And he was a little known one term senator that had not even served a full term.
So that is not a means to judge the winner with.
He will make people aware of him and he is doing a good job of it right in the first few weeks of his run...what, the last time I heard he had 175,000 volunteers in just a few weeks.
She also has a lot of baggage from that time that will be unpacked for her by the right...and you may dismiss it but many won't because they are not as committed.
G_j
(40,367 posts)from corps. is actually supplying your apponents with amo against you.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Pffftt.
With no link the OP has the Appearance of another opinion piece.
Perfectly acceptable here on DU, nonetheless.
Some read it some don't.
aggiesal
(8,921 posts)not "Latest Breaking News".
Of course it's Cali's opinion, that was GD is for.
Posting News or Opinions, makes no difference, but it opens up discussions.
You don't want that?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When you posted:
"Democrats are bestowing their seal of approval on practices that could very, very easily lead to massive corruption. Ask yourself this; would you be comfortable with a republican SoS, planning a run for the presidency, benefiting from corporations in the same way as Clinton has? You may trust Clinton not to be influenced by the access of special interests such as big banks, but do you trust republicans? "
And THAT is the best way to frame this. How can one decry the influence of money in politics while voting for someone who benefits so much from the money system?
ANY Democrat who accepts or solicits massive amounts of Wall Street cash will NEVER be the Democratic savior.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Mostly Gowdy and his friends. They have yet to show impropriety. Even when you were trying to do so yourself, you failed. What people are doing is "six degrees from Kevin Bacon." Now, it is fair to say Hillary invited that.
"No one in politics has taken this to the extremes that both Clinton's have."
True. Few in politics care as much as the Clintons. Few would be willing to start up something as massive and beneficial as the Clinton Foundations. It is why our side is so much better. We care about people. Hillary makes big money. That is a fact. Clinton/Carter. Awesome what they have done after leaving office. Another day, another cali Clinton concern.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Gain power and dismantle the current structure of campaign finance.
cali
(114,904 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Certainly not the corporations pouring money into her coffers. Her campaign promise is a joke.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Nothing new.
Trash & bye
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)To be fair though the outrages are alternated from day to day so as not to become repetitive. Tomorrow is TPP day I believe.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... Of Hillary standing over the body of Vince Foster with a smoking gun in her hand? That might change my mind, might. After hundreds of posts "criticizing" hrc , I just kinda wonder how many minds have been changed here.
Response to quickesst (Reply #10)
Post removed
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)How does that help?
...talk all you want. I don't care how much money her or Bill have made, or how much anyone has donated to their charity. Until charges are brought, an indictment issued and a conviction made, it is still my opinion HRC is the best person to be president. As a matter of fact it kind of scares me to think of anyone else at the reins. She's going to make a fine president.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)And this holds true not just for HRC, but for ANY politician. We can't say it's ok when our team does it and have any authority to criticize. This should be completely obvious to anyone who cares about governance, and am so stunned that it isn't.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 1, 2015, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)
The Clintons (yes, both of them) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the White House here http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/understanding.pdf promising that the Clinton Foundation would disclose donors while Hillary served as SOS. The State Department revealed the Clintons engaged in repeated violations of that ethics pledge here http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-not-review-clinton-ethics-pledge-breaches-204846487.html
Source: Reuters
LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-not-review-clinton-ethics-pledge-breaches-204846487.html
(Reuters) - The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family's charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.
Clinton, now the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat.
She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.
In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.
The State Department "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, but does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of conflicts of interest. The Clintons just don't care and that lackadaisical attitude flows downhill to their supporters. Their response to the legitimate concern expressed? Oh, well, people are just haters they say.
Democrats SHOULD have a problem with this. And the private server in violation of State Department protocol. And the proliferation of arms sales during Hillary's tenure as SOS (more than GW Bush FFS) to questionably hostile countries accompanied by huge donations to the Foundation from arms manufacturers and foreign countries. Quid-Pro-Clinton Foundation-Quo? And the recently uncovered WJC, LLC, a shell corporation used to circumvent disclosure to the US government including the IRS (5 years of taxes had to be refiled). And .... the list of impropriety goes on and on.
Edited for typos.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Do you think it is something that might come up in the general election? Republicans wouldn't stoop to attacking her on this issue the way DUers are, would they?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Not at all I would venture to guess.
It's not okay. Anyone that thinks it is okay is straightup wrong.
And, yes, the Republicans will pillory her for it 24/7. On this, justifiably.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Ironic sarcasm
EDIT - in making the point that this will be a meaty issue on the Republican attack menu come GE time.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)You are fairly new here - welcome by the way 
- and your sense of humor not clear yet.
Cheers.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)
Laser102
(816 posts)They are no longer in public life. No one can say there was any quid pro quo while she was SOS. Not one article has indicated she did anything against the law. Suspicion and innuendo. That's why the public is shrugging.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)And, no, the Clintons cannot "do what they want." They are bound by ethical and legal obligations which they have skirted and/or violated repeatedly.
And don't kid yourself, the public isn't shrugging; that's just some Clinton supporters who are blowing all this off like it's no big whoop. The Clintons' questionable and often unethical behavior is slowly but surely undermining her support, often described as a mile wide and an inch deep.
So, good luck defending that mess.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)along with a lot of other not so good appearances.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)You are correct.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)And I suspect her supporters would be higher than 10% if they were not constantly harassed here. I'm certain there are many who will not post out of frustration because of that.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Look at any HRC thread and you will see it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I'd ask if you had any self-awareness at all, but the answer is clearly no.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
murielm99
(30,754 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)They aren't the ones that are going to win or lose the election.
You have to worry about people like me, the unaffiliated. Sad news for you, it matters to me.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)At least the sane ones.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the Republicans and the Democrats make promises but never deliver, they know 90% of those affiliated with a party vote for the party's candidate. Unaffiliated voters have already figured out the game the two major parties play. I figured it out with the Republicans about 30 years ago. I didn't believe in their philosophy anyway but noticed they never delivered even when they could. Why? Because if they gave the voters what they want there would be no incentive to vote for them again. In other words, a happy voter doesn't vote. The Democrats were better at it, I didn't realize they were doing the same thing until about 20 years ago.
Can you imagine what will happen to the two major parties if Bernie wins the presidency? That is what is scaring so many people in power. The 90% return rate for Representatives and Senators is out the window if people realize they can actually vote for the best candidate and there is a good chance for them to win.
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)As President she would be their President too, and they are kind of hard for any President to ignore. Like it or not they are kind of relevant.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
olddots
(10,237 posts)the wealthist Democratics I know are ready for Hillary and I feel like its ruining our freindship .
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)
asjr
(10,479 posts)H2O Man
(73,579 posts)You make great points. Thank you.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)THEN liberals, and only then, can move on to expose and feast upon the exposed carcass of the non-Clinton related corruption, for all to see clearly?
There is no other way to expose all the other widespread corruption, but to claim corruption among the CHARiTY run world wide in the Clinton's name?? Really?
The logical disconnect is astounding.
The fact said charity has been up and running for 12 years without a nary of concern, rather under a solid international mantle of trust and respect, and that these new shrill cries arose first from the Enemy Camp only after Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for President, as if on a cue, well, any allegation of a connection is just....crazy talk.
Republicans must be having a laugh, their own attacks are flailing.
"At the International AIDS Conference in 2002, the prime minister of St. Kitts and Nevis asked President Clinton to help build a health care system that would address the pressing HIV/AIDS pandemic. At the urging of Nelson Mandela, he began the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative, which is now named the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) to improve global access to care and treatment.
During the same time CHAI began its work, President Clinton established his post-presidential office in the iconic neighborhood of Harlem in New York City, where he saw a great opportunity for his Foundation to help empower local small business owners.
Over the next decade, the Foundation continued to expand its reach and impact, building on past successes and applying the same business-oriented approach to tackle other pressing challenges. While some initiatives blossomed from President Clinton’s commitment to specific issues — like climate change through the Clinton Climate Initiative — others were inspired by life-changing events."
- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/clinton-foundation-history#sthash.wWohFp1g.dpuf
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If we go with this candidate then the powers that be have won and there's not recovering.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Personally, I do not consider Neoliberals to be a wanted or needed part of the Democratic party. They should go home to the Republican party where they originated from.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)corruption at any point in the future. Just embrace what is destroying us until it becomes the new normal.
That's not even a refutation of your point. They're implicitly acknowledging everything you said but endorsing the corruption because it's our team.
And people complain I went anarchist. They made me do it.
