General Discussion

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)

4. I'm ambivalent about Hillary, but conflating the Clinton Foundation with Hillary's checkbook is bull

Sat May 2, 2015, 09:15 AM

May 2015

Is Carly Fiorina scrutinized because of her leadership relationship with Good360?

Are HomeDepot's donations to that nonprofit reflective of an expectation of quid pro quo from candidate Fiorina?

The reason for all the scrutiny of the Clinton foundation is its name.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

David Sirota: In Defense of Hillary Clinton, Democrats Embrace Citizens United Decision [View all] marmar May 2015 OP

Sirota just made the case for Sanders 2016, imo n/t fredamae May 2015 #1

+1000000000 woo me with science May 2015 #3

Agree peacebird May 2015 #7

the big money borg. Hillary has long been part of it. cali May 2015 #2

I'm ambivalent about Hillary, but conflating the Clinton Foundation with Hillary's checkbook is bull lumberjack_jeff May 2015 #4

Agree. GeorgeGist May 2015 #9

Absolutely. nt okaawhatever May 2015 #13

Two points... Had to jump in somewhere... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #40

It aspires to be a foundation with global reach not unlike the Gates foundation. lumberjack_jeff May 2015 #42

I see quid...I don't see quo... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #43

Except for that 9 out of 10 thingy....as in "not always" Caretha May 2015 #72

If there were a quo... DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #76

Why wouldn't we try to beat them at their own game? JaneyVee May 2015 #5

Agree GeorgeGist May 2015 #10

Because they're corrupt. Marr May 2015 #18

We can end Citizens United by beating them at their own game. JaneyVee May 2015 #20

That makes as much sense as digging your way Motown_Johnny May 2015 #21

You can dig your way out of a hole. Its called a tunnel. JaneyVee May 2015 #23

Kind of like having sex for chastity? 99Forever May 2015 #61

We may beat the Rs at their game but the big money guys are going to want something for their jwirr May 2015 #56

Ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner! Populist_Prole May 2015 #60

So the correct decision is to unilaterally disarm? brooklynite May 2015 #6

Exactly. Nothing more than another Clinton hit piece. What an irresponsible article. nt okaawhatever May 2015 #14

Well, duh! One of the big reasons given as to why Hillary should be The One - BIG MONEY! djean111 May 2015 #8

+1 The problem presented as the excuse. woo me with science May 2015 #11

Well, I hope you make it an absolute condition of Sander's campaign that he not take money okaawhatever May 2015 #16

LOL! woo me with science May 2015 #17

Wow so the majority of Bernie's money comes from PACs and the majority of Clinton's money okaawhatever May 2015 #19

And who took more money from PAC's? LOL KittyWampus May 2015 #31

I guess you really CAN tell about people by the company they keep. n/t pa28 May 2015 #34

I am just saying that Hillary's big wad of money was given as an actual reason that she djean111 May 2015 #55

really? Florencenj2point0 May 2015 #52

Hillary is just playing by the rules. sulphurdunn May 2015 #12

No. You don't commit campaign suicide. You win and as soon as possible overturn those laws. CU will okaawhatever May 2015 #15

A progressive candidate sulphurdunn May 2015 #30

The problem is now presented as the excuse! woo me with science May 2015 #22

So, to be clear...even though the Republicans will raise $1 B + through Super PACS... brooklynite May 2015 #25

Yea, that's about right. sulphurdunn May 2015 #33

"Not to play" = give up brooklynite May 2015 #39

Sometimes it means "not a sucker" sulphurdunn May 2015 #46

explain then how you compete with the Republicans who WILL take every last SuperPAC dollar brooklynite May 2015 #48

You don't. That's the idea. sulphurdunn May 2015 #53

...and you believe you can win a national election on that basis? brooklynite May 2015 #54

I think you miss my point. sulphurdunn May 2015 #58

And in the meantime, I still think a Democrat is better...maybe you don't? brooklynite May 2015 #62

There is no meantime. sulphurdunn May 2015 #63

Good observation Populist_Prole May 2015 #26

^^^THIS^^^ L0oniX May 2015 #75

Unilateral disarmament does not lead to peace. geek tragedy May 2015 #24

Bad analogy. sulphurdunn May 2015 #37

Losing is not much of a strategy. nt geek tragedy May 2015 #65

Fighting for Tweedledum sulphurdunn May 2015 #66

The Democrats are not a rightist party. geek tragedy May 2015 #69

He made case for Hillary: If Hillary want to really win, She and Dem's have to win! lewebley3 May 2015 #27

Winning the battle but losing the war Populist_Prole May 2015 #28

Hillary was good for the 99% most successful Administration in History! lewebley3 May 2015 #32

To the GOP sulphurdunn May 2015 #38

If that is what you think Hillary: You have been lazy about learning about her! lewebley3 May 2015 #44

She cynically voted to give that imbecile sulphurdunn May 2015 #47

Again, the War was Bush's Decision alone: He said so!! lewebley3 May 2015 #77

Kosovo was a PNAC war nationalize the fed May 2015 #49

Dem's can only be good for 99% : if GOP win 99% will be fighting a war in Iran! lewebley3 May 2015 #45

You don't get it, and never will Populist_Prole May 2015 #59

Sirota is such a liar: "the party SEEMS to be collectively saying" KittyWampus May 2015 #29

Democrats have embraced a number of right wing concepts, Maedhros May 2015 #35

You left out the Heritage Foundation Health Insurance Mandate nationalize the fed May 2015 #50

David Sirota has been on a roll lately. pa28 May 2015 #36

If he's as successful at taking down Hillary as he was in taking down Rahm HRC will certainly be #45 DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #41

I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC - What Better Way To Enrich The 1% Even More cantbeserious May 2015 #51

this article is insane Florencenj2point0 May 2015 #57

What lies are there? uppityperson May 2015 #64

no! not the LEFT WING! and your sigline says Clinton's progressive--care to explain the difference? MisterP May 2015 #68

the reasoning is that if we don't support TPP we can't make it "more liberal" and if we're MisterP May 2015 #67

And which Democrats are those? ibegurpard May 2015 #70

Who writes this shit!? Caretha May 2015 #71

Sirota is as full of shit as a christmas turkey madokie May 2015 #73

Yer bad! Yer very very bad! L0oniX May 2015 #74