2016 Postmortem

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,123 posts)

37. Not good. Can you see Bernie doing this?

Reply to cantbeserious (Reply #26)

Mon Oct 26, 2015, 08:17 AM

Oct 2015

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

152 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sirota: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department [View all] grasswire Oct 2015 OP

ooops olddots Oct 2015 #1

Quid Pro Quo Unknown Beatle Oct 2015 #2

^^^ This ^^^ - A View Of War To Come? cantbeserious Oct 2015 #26

Not good. Can you see Bernie doing this? InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2015 #37

Bernie establishing a world-wide highly respected charity? I probably could! Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #62

Selling guns in the Middle East is now a charity? bvar22 Oct 2015 #97

Clinton Foundation was selling guns? randys1 Oct 2015 #102

First pay my foundation. Then you can buy guns. senz Oct 2015 #104

I wonder what President Cruz will do in the ME. randys1 Oct 2015 #106

I wonder what President Sanders would do. senz Oct 2015 #108

Exhausting randys1 Oct 2015 #109

Wouldn't be if you backed the right candidate. senz Oct 2015 #112

Surprised we haven't heard more about this. senz Oct 2015 #3

Lessig's concern helps defend against the source attackers dreamnightwind Oct 2015 #22

sirota enid602 Oct 2015 #134

Oh Please....read the article KoKo Oct 2015 #143

Those were the days my friend Fumesucker Oct 2015 #4

But only 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Enthusiast Oct 2015 #29

True, it was the Iranian hijackers who were the real enemy Fumesucker Oct 2015 #40

Those were the days, my friend....indeed. KoKo Oct 2015 #84

If it was a Bush, DU would be UNANIMOUS in opposition to it. Not one post would be in support. arcane1 Oct 2015 #94

Werent all these Republican attacks debunked moobu2 Oct 2015 #5

You're really going to call David Sirota a Republican? Scootaloo Oct 2015 #17

No. They were dismissed not debunked. think Oct 2015 #33

Jesus. AzDar Oct 2015 #6

wow. this is bidness as usual. no wonder they get along with the bushes roguevalley Oct 2015 #7

Another OP dredging out the old, debunked "Clinton Cash" talking points. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #8

Hmm, well, the source looks pretty reliable ... senz Oct 2015 #10

The New York Times published Clinton Cash excerpts back in May. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #14

Yes. And of course the same reliable readers fall reliably for the same unreliable propaganda. Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #70

This has nothing to do with "Clinton Cash." senz Oct 2015 #110

It's the same bullshit. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #114

It's factual, shocking, and new to me. senz Oct 2015 #119

Claiming it was quid pro quo is not factual. It is just someone's opinion. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #122

Blatant correlations should not be ignored senz Oct 2015 #128

"Correlation" does not mean causation. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #132

So we should shut our eyes and look the other way. senz Oct 2015 #137

No, but you should not make shit up. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #139

yeah, keep telling yourself that fable...nt grasswire Oct 2015 #111

From GOP propaganda coffers directly to the OP sections of DU....there is an obvious co-relation. Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #59

None of this money was going to benefit the Clintons personally. The foundation is for charity. pnwmom Oct 2015 #9

Unfortunately, the article contradicts this. senz Oct 2015 #12

Again, Presidents have always promoted the US air industry, which is a major producer pnwmom Oct 2015 #15

Governments & corporations gave money directly to the Clinton FAMILY. senz Oct 2015 #88

All I saw in the article is that they paid the former President for speeches. pnwmom Oct 2015 #93

Speeches? This isn't about "speeches." Try weapons sales to terrorists for cash. senz Oct 2015 #116

There's nothing in this article that says that. n/t pnwmom Oct 2015 #121

There's a disturbing correlation senz Oct 2015 #126

Actually, I think it IS a big deal Scootaloo Oct 2015 #16

Yes. Promoting US interests is part of what the State Department does, and Boeing provides pnwmom Oct 2015 #18

Helping to escalate the global arms race is good, because it save jobs here??? Wow are we lost. reformist2 Oct 2015 #21

Yes some of us appear to be /nt dreamnightwind Oct 2015 #23

Ask 162,000 Boeing employees .... PosterChild Oct 2015 #25

Hillary is anti gun didn't you know? JRLeft Oct 2015 #47

+1000 lol lol lol senz Oct 2015 #120

Providing facts about Hillary is called bashing her. JRLeft Oct 2015 #142

Orwell was an optimist. grasswire Oct 2015 #113

Orwell was prescient senz Oct 2015 #123

Selling billions worth of weapons to a country that beheads more people than ISIS. arcane1 Oct 2015 #95

it's not like the wife of one of her biggest donors in 2008 and now is on the BoD of Clinton Fd. azurnoir Oct 2015 #24

Saudi Arabia getting US weapons requires bribery??? come on... That Guy 888 Oct 2015 #11

Well, they don't state that it's bribery, per se. Although appearances aren't too good. senz Oct 2015 #13

The "real world" runs on grease. The Saudis were just greasing the skids. mhatrw Oct 2015 #146

Clinton supporters will say it was just business as usual, nothing to see here. Bernblu Oct 2015 #19

I often forget that the Secretary of State approves all these arms deals. She's deep in all that. reformist2 Oct 2015 #20

Let me get this straight zalinda Oct 2015 #30

They are republican lite. JRLeft Oct 2015 #46

+1000 senz Oct 2015 #89

Whoooo caaaarrreeesss??? 6chars Oct 2015 #27

Why should we care that she is corrupt? /nt RiverLover Oct 2015 #28

We should sacrifice anything to make her the next president. Enthusiast Oct 2015 #31

WINNING RiverLover Oct 2015 #39

Yes, why? We LOVE corruption! Corruption is GOOD. senz Oct 2015 #90

Already debunked. leftofcool Oct 2015 #32

Dismissed yes. Debunked no. The facts are what they are. think Oct 2015 #34

Yea, those GOP "facts" come up a lot on DU leftofcool Oct 2015 #48

GOP facts. What are those? Facts that don't fit your narrative? think Oct 2015 #50

David Sirota is GOP? Wow. When did he switch? senz Oct 2015 #92

LINK? grasswire Oct 2015 #117

REDUX DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #35

Are you claiming the article contains factual inaccuracies or just that you disagree that facts think Oct 2015 #36

If you believe Hillary Clinton has violated the law I will extend to you the courtesy ... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #38

Activities can occur without violating the letter of the law that still are questionable at best. think Oct 2015 #41

If you believe there was a quid pro quo then you have established one of the elements neccessary DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #42

Did you even read what I wrote? good grief.... think Oct 2015 #44

I gave you the statute and the contact information for the A G. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #45

I wrote right in the title that letter of the law wasn't violated but keep ignoring the damn subject think Oct 2015 #49

If I am guilty of anything it's trying to be helpful./nt DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #51

No. You're trying to avoid discussing what actually happened. So be it... think Oct 2015 #52

I sincerely regret you feel that way. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #53

Did SoS Clinton increase sales of military weaponry after donations were made or not? think Oct 2015 #54

If you believe you have satisfied the elements of bribery I gave you the Statute and A G info. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #57

Thanks for not answering the simple question and then making a baseless claim once again.... think Oct 2015 #63

If she didn't violate any laws what is the point of our tete a tete? DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #68

It's a question of character which is the subject here. Do you approve of the selling of weapons think Oct 2015 #77

If it's question of character as a small (d) Democrat I will let my fellow Democrats hash it out... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #79

So you prefer not to give your opinion correct? That is understandable given the circumstances.... think Oct 2015 #80

My opinion is she did nothing wrong. You hold a different opinion. That's how we roll in America. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #81

Thank you for stating your opinion. /nt think Oct 2015 #82

You are welcome, sir or madame, and I would be remiss if I didn't wish you a happy week./nt DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #83

I hope you have a great week also. For what it's worth Hillary did extremely well in the hearing. think Oct 2015 #85

Thank you for this exchange. senz Oct 2015 #98

Bribery and corruption has been legalized. Garrett78 Oct 2015 #129

Is inevitibility your argument for everything? It seems so. Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #56

My support is a function of the fact... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #60

That was not an answer to the question I posed. I didn't ask you why you supported Clinton. Bread and Circus Oct 2015 #71

My initial post in this thread... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #75

Wow... Hepburn Oct 2015 #87

According to her supporters she's not beholden. JRLeft Oct 2015 #43

One obfuscates. The other spins. They all deny. senz Oct 2015 #101

I am convinced far too many Bernie fans know too little about statistics and co-relations Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #55

Do you want to actually discuss what occurred or just drop accusations? think Oct 2015 #58

There is no subject to discuss...that was my point, as others have tried to tell you! Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #61

Did you read the article? think Oct 2015 #64

I read Clinton Cash excerpts.. the GOP propaganda rag that alleges the same nothing...did you? Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #67

I read THIS article. This is what is being discussed. I have no clue what you are referencing think Oct 2015 #69

You have no clue!? Google it! Get informed! Then you will understand. Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #72

This article is not your right wing source so either discuss facts in THIS article or keep spinning think Oct 2015 #78

The intention is to distract from facts, and discredit their source. arcane1 Oct 2015 #96

This isn't "Clinton Cash." senz Oct 2015 #99

Consider it counter-spin....just keeping things in balance for the thinking folks at DU. Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #100

Facts and deflection are two different things, Fred. senz Oct 2015 #103

Correlation <> causation, but in this case, it does equal a GLARINGLY HUGE conflict of interest! nt mhatrw Oct 2015 #148

K & R !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #65

Ugh. A punch to the gut. Bernie should head-on spotlight conflict of interest "realities" as a core JudyM Oct 2015 #66

There are other conflicts of interest like Walton family members and Walmart foundation donations.nt Snotcicles Oct 2015 #91

How truly awful. The hits just keep on comin'. nt Zorra Oct 2015 #73

This is the issue to me expecially with regards to the server. mmonk Oct 2015 #74

+! The "Howdy Gowdy Show" was just a distraction from the real issue.... KoKo Oct 2015 #86

And that is the Big Picture, simply put. senz Oct 2015 #107

Yes....very much fits our times. KoKo Oct 2015 #135

Thanks, KoKo. senz Oct 2015 #138

The Howdy Gowdy Show. Octafish Oct 2015 #115

Yep....The Clinton Foundation is a Conflict of Interest KoKo Oct 2015 #130

Money. Money. Money. Octafish Oct 2015 #140

Terry McAuliffe..Al Gore & "Stolen Election 2000"....and Who Profited? It Goes On... KoKo Oct 2015 #141

wow grasswire Oct 2015 #151

K N R Faux pas Oct 2015 #76

Seems Legit portlander23 Oct 2015 #105

Wonderful, portlander. senz Oct 2015 #127

Okay, so we're basically accusing Clinton taking bribes now. On a Democratic forum? BlueCheese Oct 2015 #118

Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess. SunSeeker Oct 2015 #124

lol -- uh huh that's got to be it. senz Oct 2015 #131

LOL indeed. Spend your evenings catching up on 5 months worth of the International Business Times? SunSeeker Oct 2015 #133

Wow! Duppers Oct 2015 #125

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #136

Yes...legs....down the road. KoKo Oct 2015 #144

Foundation = found money nt mhatrw Oct 2015 #145

She also forced countries to frack jfern Oct 2015 #147

what countries were forced to frack, do you remember? grasswire Oct 2015 #149

Well, maybe not force, but she did push jfern Oct 2015 #150

thanks much. nt grasswire Oct 2015 #152