General Discussion

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

81. Well

Tue Aug 25, 2015, 10:24 AM

Aug 2015

My brain doesn't hurt, nor am I confused.

Well, I might be a little confused about why candelista is using the interpretation and deceptive writing and graphics of a right wing ideologue like Sean Davis to support his or her argument (more on this point in sub-thread below), but that's not really confusion about the subject matter. It should be clear, in any case, that Davis' deceptive reading of the financials are not "facts." I'm also not clear why progressives are not reading conservative rhetoric more critically and attentively.

I'm still open to arguments on the Clinton Foundation, but those should really be objective analyses, rather than bluster and dodges from sources that are very obviously conservative ideologues.

I'm also not very stressed. Have a good day, Chairman!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

169 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department [View all] candelista Aug 2015 OP

That's old news moobu2 Aug 2015 #1

It was published today, August 24 of this year. candelista Aug 2015 #2

I meant the issues covered in this hit piece moobu2 Aug 2015 #3

It never amounted to anything that could be proven in a court of law. /nt RiverLover Aug 2015 #9

Maybe you'd like to see the Bushes back in charge. yardwork Aug 2015 #24

Those are not our only choices. We don't need any more Bushes or Clintons in DC. RiverLover Aug 2015 #32

That is what some here want, no doubt. Bush, Walker, who cares, right? randys1 Aug 2015 #126

Bull puckies. merrily Aug 2015 #164

Bull puckies. merrily Aug 2015 #165

That suggests a new slogan for Hillary's campaign. candelista Aug 2015 #53

Clinton for President Kelvin Mace Aug 2015 #102

How is that not a campaign button? merrily Aug 2015 #166

No it was in May - plus posted on DU at that time... OKNancy Aug 2015 #87

The byline says May, and you just happened to dredge it up now? yardwork Aug 2015 #110

think about what they could get if she was President. Amazing. roguevalley Aug 2015 #120

It's a charitable foundation. It does a lot of good around the world. 6000eliot Aug 2015 #4

As long as it does some good, who cares if the donor money comes Kelvin Mace Aug 2015 #105

Second comparison of Clinton Foundation to a pedophile in this thread! yardwork Aug 2015 #107

Then stop asserting that foundations don't benefit the founders Kelvin Mace Aug 2015 #111

I haven't asserted anything of the kind. yardwork Aug 2015 #113

You are correct, Kelvin Mace Aug 2015 #114

Thank you for the apology. yardwork Aug 2015 #115

Same old smears. n/t murielm99 Aug 2015 #5

This is right wing trash. Smear piece. yardwork Aug 2015 #6

Put out by Bernie Sander's former employee. ......Nice surrogate attacks, eh? nt msanthrope Aug 2015 #12

Stooping low. This plays into the hands of Republicans. yardwork Aug 2015 #13

Not very adept of the Sanders campaign. nt msanthrope Aug 2015 #14

I was withholding judgement but it's starting to look that way. yardwork Aug 2015 #28

Still pushing that lie even after you were shown the obviousness of the context of the statement. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #34

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #75

"He should have his cock cut off, too, if he's a guy". whathehell Aug 2015 #83

You realize that quote and your username went together perfectly, right? Quackers Aug 2015 #92

Uh, no.. whathehell Aug 2015 #103

Ok Quackers Aug 2015 #119

I'm glad you realized it was a quote.. whathehell Aug 2015 #121

Lol Quackers Aug 2015 #122

Well done!! whathehell Aug 2015 #125

Not tombstoned yet, but flagged for review alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #128

Poster has been PPR'd Raine1967 Aug 2015 #135

Good.. about time! Cha Aug 2015 #143

Yes I noticed that as well, it was awesome. Agschmid Aug 2015 #133

I recommend that you delete this post, as well as the post below. yardwork Aug 2015 #84

Thank you! It is indeed. n/t freshwest Aug 2015 #132

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #7

This is a blatant smear. Agschmid Aug 2015 #8

Sexist, too. AngryAmish Aug 2015 #10

But not racist. candelista Aug 2015 #63

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #77

Typical Bernie Sanders supporter smear....No wonder he's trailing Clinton...... msanthrope Aug 2015 #11

This isn't about Sanders supporters. Agschmid Aug 2015 #15

It reflects on the writer of the article. Sanders should denounce this. yardwork Aug 2015 #18

If a former Clinton spokesperson had written anything like this about BS..... msanthrope Aug 2015 #21

There are now some other posts in this thread that reflect very poorly on Sanders' campaign. yardwork Aug 2015 #26

You're just oozing with desperation to push the pedophile line, aren't you? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #31

What individual people say do is out of the control of the candidate. Agschmid Aug 2015 #36

Of course, but campaigns have to control their message. yardwork Aug 2015 #37

You're trying way to hard to make this a Sanders thing. /nt Marr Aug 2015 #89

You know, that poster was a troll, not a typical Sanders supporter cyberswede Aug 2015 #136

Yes. That's their job. yardwork Aug 2015 #140

Indeed...you have a few skating around for Bernie. nt msanthrope Aug 2015 #158

I don't think its possible to determine if a troll is even really "for" anybody cyberswede Aug 2015 #160

I see a lot of people denouncing it as a smear but no one is Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #16

Really? You don't see the difference between a charitable fiundation yardwork Aug 2015 #17

I hear the Susan B. Komen Foundation is a charity too. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #20

Wow. Comparing the Clinton Foundation to a pedophile. yardwork Aug 2015 #22

Wow. Reaching for the pedophile angle rather than the obvious sham charity angle. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #25

A Sanders campaign employee wrote the article. Yeah, we noticed. yardwork Aug 2015 #27

You keep dodging why the CF is so dodgy. You made the claim the CF is a charity yet you Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #30

Look it up yourself. yardwork Aug 2015 #33

Obviously Google has deserted you in your time of desperate need. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #35

In 2009-2012 The Clinton Foundation spent 15% on charitable activities. candelista Aug 2015 #39

Ugh, that is awful. Doesn't sound very charitable to me. nt Live and Learn Aug 2015 #57

Do you have evidence that the Clinton Foundation is a sham charity? alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #38

See my post above. candelista Aug 2015 #40

Your post above provides no evidence that the Clinton Foundation alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #46

"No evidence"? :) candelista Aug 2015 #48

don't confuse them with facts. It makes their brains hurt. ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #49

LOL. nt candelista Aug 2015 #52

LOL at your conservative ideologue source, friend alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #85

Hey. I subscribe to AFA's newsletter ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #91

Agree with you completely, Chairman alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #96

normally it is relatively painless, but ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #100

Well alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #81

"Do you have similar evidence regarding the Clinton Foundation, or are you just 'asking questions'?" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2015 #43

So you have no evidence to support your speculation? Okay then. alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #47

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #50

Nice graphic from the Federalist, a conservative web site alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #64

The Daily Kos cited it. That's the link in my first quote. candelista Aug 2015 #67

Nevertheless, the source is a conservative fanatic whose prose and data are demonstrably deceptive alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #68

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #74

Why would you do that? alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #76

Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #79

If I didn't know any better alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #82

I was wondering the same thing. yardwork Aug 2015 #88

Interesting to note two data points alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #116

Very interesting timing. yardwork Aug 2015 #117

I would never use a right wing source to attack Bernie Sanders alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #118

You were right. Socks of one another, now banned. yardwork Aug 2015 #141

I sees 'em easy alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #146

FYI you nailed it. Agschmid Aug 2015 #130

Very easy to provoke that one into overreaction alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #145

You need to take a break. yardwork Aug 2015 #86

He's toast....... BooScout Aug 2015 #98

Just FYI... turns out that Beauregard WAS... get this... Candelista. Agschmid Aug 2015 #129

Beauregard and candelista are the same person OKNancy Aug 2015 #134

And I'm not surprised ismnotwasm Aug 2015 #138

I must live a sheltered life. Starry Messenger Aug 2015 #144

Sometimes it's how they earn a living. nt tblue37 Aug 2015 #162

What a buffoon... the sad part is it was so transparent alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #148

I though personal attacks were against TOS? nt Live and Learn Aug 2015 #152

They are PPR'ed, and therefore are no more alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #154

Yeah, I just saw that post and came back to delete mine. Live and Learn Aug 2015 #155

Charitable foundations can also be simple tax shelters. Marr Aug 2015 #94

You "have no information on how the Clinton Foundation operates" yardwork Aug 2015 #97

I've seen mother ducks who were less protective of their babies than Marr Aug 2015 #101

+1 It is almost liike they assume we were all born yesterday. Live and Learn Aug 2015 #163

'Cause other DUers definitely do know exactly how the Clinton Foundation works, doncha know. merrily Aug 2015 #167

It's all Legal, here are Clinton Foundations IRS reports and financials for you to review. Sunlei Aug 2015 #44

Legal does not equal moral. nt Live and Learn Aug 2015 #58

thousands of people Clinton Foundation has directly helped start think it's a 'Moral' Foundation Sunlei Aug 2015 #66

If the numbers posted above are correct, the 'charity' is spending more Live and Learn Aug 2015 #69

The numbers posted above are the interpretation of a right wing ideologue alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #71

Well they're foundation certainly isn't as straighforward as Carter's is. Live and Learn Aug 2015 #150

To be sure, they are very different sorts of foundations alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #153

Why would you post that? The OP did not quote the Ferderalist. Live and Learn Aug 2015 #151

You don't have to.A real charity gets corp donors to commit so the charity doesn't have to support Sunlei Aug 2015 #72

Give me a break! A real charity only needs corp dollars? Live and Learn Aug 2015 #149

Jimmy Carter's foundations have raised even more money than the Clintons' (nt) Recursion Aug 2015 #19

They'll be targeted next, by people supposedly on our side. yardwork Aug 2015 #23

except most of that money goes out to benefit the needy. ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2015 #51

Quite a difference since 90% of his foundation's monies raised actually go to charity! Live and Learn Aug 2015 #61

+1. nt candelista Aug 2015 #65

they're different charities with different focus. More of Carter foundation money pays for a Sunlei Aug 2015 #95

Surprise - Surprise - Better To Never Trust A Corpratist cantbeserious Aug 2015 #29

most of american 'big donors' get state and federal taxpayer money whenever they can. None as Sunlei Aug 2015 #41

The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary... SidDithers Aug 2015 #42

"Fringe left." :) candelista Aug 2015 #55

If the shoe fits...nt SidDithers Aug 2015 #56

Well, we are for the 'fringe' candidate! Live and Learn Aug 2015 #62

Looks like you were both the Right and the Fringe Left... SidDithers Aug 2015 #161

"I wonder if there were any emails on Hillary's server about any of this" GusBob Aug 2015 #45

That's what I think she is really worried about. candelista Aug 2015 #60

Not this shit again. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2015 #54

I guess Sirota, Hedges, et al miss the salad days of being able to write tragic pieces about Starry Messenger Aug 2015 #59

See, Jane Hamsher. nt msanthrope Aug 2015 #159

She was simply creating American jobs. I don't see what the big deal is. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #70

How is this any different than other politician? procon Aug 2015 #73

Would it have been better if the Clinton foundation was doing business with mostly enemies? lumberjack_jeff Aug 2015 #78

And the hit pieces just keep coming. liberal N proud Aug 2015 #80

in a way, not really. THis was first published and discussed on DU back in May OKNancy Aug 2015 #90

The hit pieces keep being recycled. Is it time for Benghazi again? yardwork Aug 2015 #93

HRC too, they say! Janet Reno, Vince Foster and Huma Abedin! There's a pattern! Sorta. n/t freshwest Aug 2015 #137

So it is a regurgitated hit piece. liberal N proud Aug 2015 #108

not only that but candelista and Beauregard were banned... same person! OKNancy Aug 2015 #131

Typical troll behavior. Good work, MIRT. yardwork Aug 2015 #139

Recycling debunked right wing smears on DU can't be good for one's karma emulatorloo Aug 2015 #99

Agreed +1 (n/t) CajunBlazer Aug 2015 #106

Weakest, weak-assed sauce for some time. Darb Aug 2015 #104

If this was supposed to get me to support Sanders, it had the opposite affect. CajunBlazer Aug 2015 #109

This might be worth a look if it was unusual for the US to sell arms to Saudi Arabia stevenleser Aug 2015 #112

"State Department will not review Clinton ethics pledge breaches" AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #123

Are you spamming DU with this? Kingofalldems Aug 2015 #124

I see the mole and his/her sock have been banned. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #142

Got 'eeeeeeeemmmmmm alcibiades_mystery Aug 2015 #147

But but no...He was a committed Socialist. Kingofalldems Aug 2015 #156

DUers new to this tactic need to catch up to the reality of how GOP operates - blm Aug 2015 #169

Just Desserts! Cha Aug 2015 #157

Long time coming, imo. Pretty obvious troll blm Aug 2015 #168