President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

I find it odd that Hillary has no speeches/events planned in the near future.

What are you talking about? Just a simple Google, and I found this:
https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/


Date

Location

Event Type

Speaker(s)

August 21, 2016 Provincetown, Massachusetts Fundraiser Hillary Clinton & Cher
August 21, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser Give ‘Em Hill! Party
August 22, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Iron Workers International Convention Tim Kaine
August 22, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Organizing Event Tim Kaine
August 23, 2016 Lakewood, Colorado Roundtable Discussion with Small Business Leters Tim Kaine
August 25, 2016 Reno, Nevada Organizing Event Hillary Clinton
August 28, 2016 Charlotte, North Carolina Fundraiser DJ Sam Ronson
August 29, 2016 Pensacola Beach, Florida Fundraiser Senator Bill Nelson
August 31, 2016 Cincinnati, Ohio American Legion National Convention Hillary Clinton
September 6, 2016 Amsterdam, North Holland Fundraiser Timothy Broas
September 7, 2016 New York City, New York Commander-in-Chief Forum Hillary Clinton
September 13, 2016 Atlanta, Georgia Fundraiser LBGTQ Friends and Allies for Hillary
September 14, 2016 Washington, DC Fundraiser Senator Debbie Stabenow
September 26, 2016 Hempstead, New York Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
September 26, 2016 Brookline, Massachusetts Fundraiser Boston for45
October 4, 2016 Farmville, Virginia Vice-Presidential Debate Tim Kaine
October 9, 2016 St. Louis, Missouri Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton
October 15, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Fundraiser Chicago for Hillary
October 19, 2016 Las Vegas, Nevada Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton

Usually candidates go very strong after the conventions. Trump seems to be gaining in the polls (some polls say anyway). He's +2 in the LA Times poll, has gained something like 10% with Hispanics in the last couple days and doubled his black support in a week or so.

He's not gaining much. Doubling his "black support" means going from 1% to 2%...while Clinton has over 90%. I'd like to see where you are getting the idea of a 10% shift in Hispanics....I simply do not believe it.

Maybe all of that doesn't matter. Maybe Hillary's internals tell her she has all the swing states and she doesn't really need to be out there.

If you look at that schedule...she is doing a LOT of fundraising. To me, I think that means she is going blast TV and radio with ads towards the end, and support House and Senate Democrats. It is OBVIOUS this election is going to be a rout. I mean, GEORGIA is a tie in the polls. Trump is a failed candidate. He made his shift way too late, and crashed too many times before it was somewhat successful.

I think she probably thinks it's safer if she stays quiet and waits for Trump to say something that the media will beat him up for.

I think that is the plan that ultimately defeated Trump. His words and ways that gained him the nomination are the very things that are holding his campaign back now. Right now, he is actually MORE scripted than Clinton...because the party is scared to death of what he says when he "shoots from the hip".

Maybe she is focused only on debate prep. Which would not be the dumbest idea.

I think she is focused on fundraising for ads and the debate....if Trump agrees to the schedule. Which I have a feeling he is going to come up with some lame excuse to back off on some of them.

Many mainstream media polls make it sound like she has it locked up

If the election were held today, she would win in a landslide and defeat Trump by a far wider margin than Obama beat Romney. Nobody wants to admit that on the Republican side.

The Republicans start out at a deficit and have to add voters. Trump came out and ONLY tried to get the Republican base and ALIENATED voters. Now he is trying attract back the very minorities he has offended for over a year. Good luck with that...and he can't win without them. The old white male vote is not enough for him to win an election...he needs other demographics, too.

but it seems all the energy and enthusiasm at events and social media are with Trump.

Yeah, so what? Elections are not won with political rallies...they are won with people voting. Trump is a media celebrity. That does not equate into winning an election. The same was true for Bernie Sanders.

She has her "Correct the Record" group which pays people to down-vote pro-Trump or anti-Hillary stuff and still he is killing her on social media. I read where she was paying people x cents per post with a budget of like six million dollars. Which by the way is illegal without a disclaimer on each post, but no one will do anything about it.

Sounds like somebody is stretching the truth to me.

But again, you have to ask yourself, how bad must Hillary be to have the entire media absolutely out to get Trump at every turn and he's damn near tied with her.

The media is not acting any differently than they were six months ago. The only difference is now Trump is losing. Six months ago all the media attention was a good thing. A month or so ago, somebody here even quoted Piers Morgan saying Trump had the media eating out of his hands because he did something stupid...I think it was during BREXIT. So, nowadays people recognize his dumb-ass comments and actions as dumb-ass comments and actions...and not designed to manipulate the media to dominate a new cycle in some grand scheme. The media coverage helped birth Trump, the very same media coverage that HE LOVED is now hated because people are realizing that, yes, he really is that much of an asshole.

[Memorex]

Those are all private fundraisers for her. I am not sure about Reno. These are not what I call events.

Correct the Record is real and gross. Paying people to support you and trash the opponent as if you are a true fan. The people involved are listed on her financial releases each month.

As for polls, here's the one I watch for the most part. It's the most honest poll out there, as far I can see. A lot of the others way over-sample Dems.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-preside ... dashboard/

This poll shows 12.8% black and 36.5% Latino. Today anyway.

Anyway, my point stands. She is largely absent. If you deny that, then I can't really have a discussion about it because I'm focused on reality.

[Monker]

Those are all private fundraisers for her. I am not sure about Reno. These are not what I call events.

That is not what you said, you said "speeches"...which is pretty generic.

Correct the Record is real and gross. Paying people to support you and trash the opponent as if you are a true fan. The people involved are listed on her financial releases each month.

True, but people do that for free all the time. FF and KC are examples.

You also said the "she", which I assume you mean Clinton, is paying these people. That is simply not true. This is a SuperPac that accepts donations from people...that is what is funding it and how they pay their activists. As far as I can tell, Clinton does not fund it at all.

As for polls, here's the one I watch for the most part. It's the most honest poll out there, as far I can see. A lot of the others way over-sample Dems.

Anyway, my point stands. She is largely absent. If you deny that, then I can't really have a discussion about it because I'm focused on reality.

Largely absent is different than no speeches at all. I think it's obvious that she is concentrating on fund raising and letting Trump basically stumble over his own feet. He can't help himself...she is actually dealing with Trump's big mouth better than any other candidate by letting him have ALL the press...he ends up fighting himself. You can't argue that it doesn't work.

While Trump fumbles around, she can gather resources to bomb the media the last few weeks of the election, or have reserves in case she actually does have something to defend against....Clinton is crushing this election. It's not even going to be close.

[Monker]

Those are all private fundraisers for her. I am not sure about Reno. These are not what I call events.

Correct the Record is real and gross. Paying people to support you and trash the opponent as if you are a true fan. The people involved are listed on her financial releases each month.

As for polls, here's the one I watch for the most part. It's the most honest poll out there, as far I can see. A lot of the others way over-sample Dems.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-preside ... dashboard/

This poll shows 12.8% black and 36.5% Latino. Today anyway.

Anyway, my point stands. She is largely absent. If you deny that, then I can't really have a discussion about it because I'm focused on reality.

Monker is very good at spin and avoiding many things. You were talking about large televised events. He's listing meet and greets. Clinton is not drawing the crowds. The Media has already been caught photoshopping her events.

LOL...but she doesn't need to do those big media events. Trump has been doing them from the start - and he is losing BADLY.

And, he didn't say "big media events like Trump", he said "speeches", which is completely different.

[Monker]

She does not do them because her numbers drop. People just naturally hate her when they see her. That has been talked about for some time. no matter how much you try to spin it and lie about it, she's been dodging the Press and doing no more nthen she has too.

You are not even using common sense and instead just repeat propaganda that you hear and read.

She doesn't have to do them. That is the simple truth. If the roles were reversed and Trump was beating her this bad, I can guarantee you that you would see Clinton out there trying to get press for her saying how much of an ass Trump is. Trump has been proving the point himself, without her (or anybody else) having to say much about it AT ALL.

As for the press, that has NOTHING to do with doing a speech or rally like we are talking about here. You are changing the subject and mixing the two topics together. Sounds like something Hannity would say.

[SF-Dano]

Reid tells CIA to lie to Trump......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aPIIRQmvPM

[Monker]

Coming soon to a browser near you...


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered tens of thousands more documents from her time as secretary of state that were not previously disclosed by her attorneys. The State Department is expected to discuss when and how it will release the emails Monday morning in federal court.

The total — confirmed by the Justice Department -- was disclosed by a conservative legal group after the State Department said last week that it would hand over the emails. The number to be released is nearly 50 percent more than the 30,000-plus that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

You know, the sad thing is Russia already has all of them, and many of them most Congressmen and Senators can't read. Of course Monker calls this a " weak email thing".

And, there is another lie coming from you. I have never said what you just quoted me as saying above. You are just a fucking liar in almost every post you make.

[Monker]

She does not do them because her numbers drop. People just naturally hate her when they see her. That has been talked about for some time. no matter how much you try to spin it and lie about it, she's been dodging the Press and doing no more nthen she has too.

You are not even using common sense and instead just repeat propaganda that you hear and read.

She doesn't have to do them. That is the simple truth. If the roles were reversed and Trump was beating her this bad, I can guarantee you that you would see Clinton out there trying to get press for her saying how much of an ass Trump is. Trump has been proving the point himself, without her (or anybody else) having to say much about it AT ALL.

As for the press, that has NOTHING to do with doing a speech or rally like we are talking about here. You are changing the subject and mixing the two topics together. Sounds like something Hannity would say.

Better take a look at new polls this week and get back in your it doesn't matter mode.

What are you talking about? Clinton up by 4 in Monmouth. Clinton up by 6 in CBS. And, Trump up by 2 in LA TImes..which I already posted a few weeks ago that I don't believe. And, a tie in Iowa (swing state) and essentially a tie in NC (normally Republican). So, Trump is behind nationally according to everybody except the LA Times, and tied in a swing state, and tied in a state he should be winning.

And, YOU consider this GOOD for Trump? You are one weird dude.

[Monker]

Went back to 832 reading Monkers horse shit. That was more of his bullshit posts then I've ever read, and about all I could stomach. I didn't find the liars "weak email" post, and I won't waste anymore of my time on his trash, but I did find this.

YOU are the liar. I don't aY things like "weak email". You didn't find it because it doesn't exist. Your demented brain invented it as a good lie.

"If you go back a few pages, you will find a post where they say all of the polls are intentionally leaning Democrat. It's a grand conspiracy of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc...and it was "predicted" on the Wednesday of the Democrat convention....you know, after all the bullshit Email crap was being ignored and pretty evident that the Democrat party was going to emerge very united. Some conservative site predicted Clinton would get a big bounce from it (duh!) but it was because of a huge conspiracy of all the polling wanting to show Clinton being way ahead." So here it's "bulshit email crap". I'm sure you didn't say that either. It's on 834.

Yes, I said, "bullshit Email crap"...BUT it wasn't referencing her private server. This was referencing the bullshit email crap about THE DNC Email servers being hacked by Russia and what was said about the Sander's campaign, attempting to divide the party, but it was eventually ignored and the Democrats emerged united anyway. But, of course, you don't give a shit about context...you simply saw "Email" and pounced on it.

Idiot.

[Monker]

He said the e-mail was invisible. I remember something was weak but ain't gonna look it up. He was wrong then and wrong now.

Just watched Trump speak in Akron to a packed crowd, dude is on fire.

WTF are you talking about? "Invisible" Email? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

The only thing that is weak here is the ability for your minds to work correctly. Maybe they are so small they are invisible to the naked eye. What a bunch of bullshit.

If you are going to accuse me of saying something like this, you better have the quote to back it up...cuz it's bullshit if you don't.

[Monker]

Monker, King of the Liars! Just two or three pages back you called it,"the weak email thing". You are such a liar.

That's just bullshit and you now proved by doing your search for it.

Here you are calling me a liar but you can't even prove yourself to be telling the truth. You are such a fucking idiot. No wonder you are a Trump fan.

To be honest, it was more then two or three pages after trying to find it. There are many posts on this topic. If anyone has the stomach and time to waste on Monkers bullshit, they can hunt for it. Frankly, it's not worth it.

It doesn't exist, dimb-ass. It's YOUR bullshit....accusing somebody of saying something they didn't say.

[Monker]

And, this is what I said about "invisible Email":

"about a few hundred pro-Bernie protesters means nothing. Their entire presence has been diminished during the DNC. The latest Email thing is INVISIBLE. It doesn't matter. You WANT it to, but people in general JUST DON'T CARE. And as TNC proved, you are a cronic liar. Bullshit. He proved NOTHING. ..."

Again, I was talking about the DNC hacked Emails....NOT Clinton's....which is a completely different subject. And, I was right - THEY DIDN'T MATTER.

[Boomchild]

I don't give pre-election polls the time of day. But it appears some here do. So with that, here's a little food for thought concerning them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAopWX9Mzgs

[Memorex]

Here are some formerly invisible emails. Or at least an article about them.

http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... nraveling/

[S2M]

I must say this, and I'm by no means an expert like you fine people.

Why do folks get in a virtual tizzy over politics? The two-party exists JUST for this reason. To keep the masses at odds with each other. Imagine if we were all on the same page? They'd be shitting bricks.

None of these Fucks give two shots about the American public. Each election is to see which party gets to bend us over for the next 4 years.

All you need to know about politicking is one party will denounce a policy, one that benefits 'Murica, JUST because their party wasn't in when it was implemented.

So when someone mentions 'party before country' when referencing the Dems, I gotta laugh...BOTH parties have that same philosophy.

[Memorex]

The answer to all our problems has arrived.

http://aliceforpresident.com/

[S2M]

If you are going to accuse me of saying something like this, you better have the quote to back it up...cuz it's bullshit if you don't.

"The e-mail thing is invisible."
"Not even the lame Email hack."

Keep spinning, my mind and search capabilities are fine. You downplayed it and the head of the DNC and various and assorted others were forced to resign. The whole world knows about it, Bern was screwed royally yet you just keep excusing this horrible affront to our electoral process. Admit it, you think what Hill did was fine and dandy, the end justifies the means, damn the voters.

Were you fucking whining like this when Catherine Harris was rigging FL for Junior?

[Memorex]

As I said, the most corrupt, crooked politician I've ever seen.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e ... -her-state

Monker and the like - I honestly don't care who you vote for . But a vote for this woman is a vote against everything we want politics to be. Yes, a lot of people on all sides are like her to a degree (though she is by far the queen in this country), but we are never going to fix it by electing her and rewarding her for her greed at the expense of our country. What message does it send that half this country wants a person to lead? I get the anti-Trump vote. But there are others. Everyone can go on about a vast right wing conspiracy but that's just lame. This is the AP. Many news sources are talking about her health and her foundation and her pay-to-play methods. Yes, much of the media is trying to give her a pass, but ask them who they want to win. It's her. They are doing all they can for this disgusting greedy woman. For the good of it all, don't help them.

[Boomchild]

WIKILEAKS TO REVEAL THESE NEW 15,000 EMAILS TO THE WORLD!

Hours after the FBI said that they have recovered 15,000 emails not originally turned over by Hillary’s lawyers, WikiLeaks made this MAJOR announcement on Twitter:

Follow
WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
Bombshell set to hit Clinton campaign as FBI recovers 14,900 deleted emails. We will incorporate them into: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
7:26 PM - 22 Aug 2016

Folks, GRAB YOUR POPCORN, because this is about to get good! WikiLeaks has their way to obtain secret documents, and now that they KNOW there are 15,000 new emails, they are going to start digging and lets us in on the goods!

This batch of emails is sure to contain some damning revelations, especially because Hillary and her team of lawyers CHOSE not to include them in the FBI’s investigation.



We’ll keep you updated with the latest.

Spare me the suspense building and release the damn things. "Shit or get off the pot" is what I have to say. I'd rather get to see the stuff before Hillary's goon squad knocks off Assange.

[Boomchild]

So it appears a group of attorneys and Bernie supporters have filed a class action lawsuit against the DNC. They are claiming that the DNC did not follow their own rules during the primary for POTUS. Below is a link to an interview with one of the attorneys involved. So what do you think the outcome of this will be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ktseCdBnyg

[Boomchild]

So it appears a group of attorneys and Bernie supporters have filed a class action lawsuit against the DNC. They are claiming that the DNC did not follow their own rules during the primary for POTUS. Below is a link to an interview with one of the attorneys involved. So what do you think the outcome of this will be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ktseCdBnyg

I'd say picking a winner before voting ballots are printed would be a violation of the rules. I'd also think it might be illegal. Millions of Americans got screwed over with their votes beinjg worthless.

Well those things can be considered. But, something tells me this will not "grow legs". I would expect the DNC to keep it stalled in the courts until the group runs out of funds to continue the case.

[Monker]

If you are going to accuse me of saying something like this, you better have the quote to back it up...cuz it's bullshit if you don't.

"The e-mail thing is invisible."
"Not even the lame Email hack."

Keep spinning, my mind and search capabilities are fine. You downplayed it and the head of the DNC and various and assorted others were forced to resign. The whole world knows about it, Bern was screwed royally yet you just keep excusing this horrible affront to our electoral process. Admit it, you think what Hill did was fine and dandy, the end justifies the means, damn the voters.

Grow the hell up, ff.

My point was that despite the DNC Email hack that the Democrats were united after the convention. That is the truth. Despite all of the bullshit effort by idiots like you and KC, it didn't matter, it was invisible. There has been virtually NO Sanders voters uprising against Clinton.

What you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what those who voted for Sanders think. AND THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN. Like KC said in another post, "Where are the Sanders people?" They are almost ALL Clinton people now. Nobody cares about this issue but people ALREADY VOTING FOR TRUMP, like you, like KC.

Yeah, I'm sure you'll find some Bernie fans who are all up in arms. But, not that many....not enough to matter.

[Monker]

So it appears a group of attorneys and Bernie supporters have filed a class action lawsuit against the DNC. They are claiming that the DNC did not follow their own rules during the primary for POTUS. Below is a link to an interview with one of the attorneys involved. So what do you think the outcome of this will be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ktseCdBnyg

I'd say picking a winner before voting ballots are printed would be a violation of the rules. I'd also think it might be illegal. Millions of Americans got screwed over with their votes beinjg worthless.

Well those things can be considered. But, something tells me this will not "grow legs". I would expect the DNC to keep it stalled in the courts until the group runs out of funds to continue the case.

Or, it will get thrown out of court as a frivolous lawsuit...and the people like FF and KC will start posting articles saying the Clintons control the courts.

[Monker]

No Monker. You are lying again. It's Party before country with your kind.

Almost EVERY POST you make is one lie after another. I do not belong to any political part, and never will. This had nothing to do with political parties anyway....it had to do with what *I SAID*. So, now you are just making shit up. It's really quite sad.

Democrats will vote for Hitler if he is the Democrat.

Well, Repuplicans like you ARE basically voting for a Htiler.

The emails are all over the web. All of your propaganda sources are working hard to surpress it

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Again, you are just MAKING SHIT UP.

All I did was post that the DNC hack became invisible and the Democrats emerged from their convention united anyway. It was *MY* observation, not something picked up from party propaganda. Unlike you and FF, I actually can think for myself and I am not brainwashed and controlled by a political party.

All of these "Emails all over the Internet" are having absolutely NO AFFECT on the election any longer. The people who are going to be swayed one way or the other HAVE ALREADY BEEN SWAYED.

Bernie people lost interest in him because after being screwed out of a rigged election where no one had a chance to win except Clinton, Bernie got bought off, and sold out his voters and put on a nice face at the DNC Convention

Again, you are simply making shit up. WHATEVER the reason, they don't give a damn about Clinton's damn Emails and are voting for her anyway. How do I know? Because the national polls are about what they were before either convention, and the swing state polls are embers singly bad against Trump. Whatever support Bernie had the majority went to Clinton.

TNC indeed proved you the liar you are, over and over, and stomped a mud hole in you. In fact, he did it with ease.

Yeah, sure he did. NOT.

[Monker]

As I said, the most corrupt, crooked politician I've ever seen.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e ... -her-state

Monker and the like - I honestly don't care who you vote for . But a vote for this woman is a vote against everything we want politics to be. Yes, a lot of people on all sides are like her to a degree (though she is by far the queen in this country), but we are never going to fix it by electing her and rewarding her for her greed at the expense of our country. What message does it send that half this country wants a person to lead? I get the anti-Trump vote. But there are others. Everyone can go on about a vast right wing conspiracy but that's just lame. This is the AP. Many news sources are talking about her health and her foundation and her pay-to-play methods. Yes, much of the media is trying to give her a pass, but ask them who they want to win. It's her. They are doing all they can for this disgusting greedy woman. For the good of it all, don't help them.

Dude, you are suggesting that the SoS should not have meetings with foreign leaders and such because it creates a conflict of interest. If she can't do that, she can't do her job.

As for the donations, to prove some type of corruption, it's not enough to simply point out a conflict of interest....you have to prove that it bought some type of influence. I have not seen that part the equation. In the equation of "donations to the Clinton foundation = corruption".....all anybody focuses on is the donation. That is bullshit. Find the corruption, and then show it was rooted at the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is this suggestion of : "donation to the Clinton Foundation = money in Clinton's pocket"

I have seen no evidence of that, either. If the name of this organization were changed to the "Red Cross" and Bill was CEO, or whatever...I seriously doubt these accusation would be out there. These accusations are basically saying Bill and Hillary are stealing from the foundation....or the foundation is giving money to the Clonton's. Neither of which is true.

[Memorex]

As I said, the most corrupt, crooked politician I've ever seen.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e ... -her-state

Monker and the like - I honestly don't care who you vote for . But a vote for this woman is a vote against everything we want politics to be. Yes, a lot of people on all sides are like her to a degree (though she is by far the queen in this country), but we are never going to fix it by electing her and rewarding her for her greed at the expense of our country. What message does it send that half this country wants a person to lead? I get the anti-Trump vote. But there are others. Everyone can go on about a vast right wing conspiracy but that's just lame. This is the AP. Many news sources are talking about her health and her foundation and her pay-to-play methods. Yes, much of the media is trying to give her a pass, but ask them who they want to win. It's her. They are doing all they can for this disgusting greedy woman. For the good of it all, don't help them.

Dude, you are suggesting that the SoS should not have meetings with foreign leaders and such because it creates a conflict of interest. If she can't do that, she can't do her job.

As for the donations, to prove some type of corruption, it's not enough to simply point out a conflict of interest....you have to prove that it bought some type of influence. I have not seen that part the equation. In the equation of "donations to the Clinton foundation = corruption".....all anybody focuses on is the donation. That is bullshit. Find the corruption, and then show it was rooted at the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is this suggestion of : "donation to the Clinton Foundation = money in Clinton's pocket"

I have seen no evidence of that, either. If the name of this organization were changed to the "Red Cross" and Bill was CEO, or whatever...I seriously doubt these accusation would be out there. These accusations are basically saying Bill and Hillary are stealing from the foundation....or the foundation is giving money to the Clonton's. Neither of which is true.

This is just plain ignorant, more likely willful blindness. There is truly overwhelming evidence of pay for play. This is the AP reporting, not Hannity or Trump. In about 5 minutes, you can find how donors got access and favors and positions.

I have about 20 points I could cover with you, but really, what's the point. Again, not saying this is a Clinton vs Trump thing. You clearly believe that the government and its "leaders" are above the people and I do not. Much of your blindness is actually the fault of both parties dividing this country to the point many, many people defend their team regardless of the obvious. It's sad. It's become the worst of us.

[Memorex]

What is particularly troubling for Clinton is that liberal publications like the Huffington Post and Boston Globe are calling for the Clinton Foundation to shut down. The calls will undoubtedly grow louder as reports continue to expose the overlap between top foreign donors to the foundation and the access it gained them to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. That access puts into question the impartiality of the decisions Secretary Clinton made while in office and the potential conflicts of interest she would be confronted with as commander in chief. The Wall Street Journal has reported that "At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation." And according to the Associated Press, 55 percent of Clinton's meetings and calls with people outside of the government were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

When Huffington Post is calling out a Democrat, it must be something. These were not simply donations for the sake of charity. They were donations at a time of lobbying for something and to a foundation that does not give much over 10% to charity. A foundation that pays Bill, and Hillary, and Diane Reynolds, um, I mean Chelsea tons of money. This is not the fucking Red Cross.

And even if it was all on the up and up (it wasn't), No sane Secretary of State would even want to give the appearance of impropriety. But that's how they got rich. That and speeches.

[JBlake]

Then there is this suggestion of : "donation to the Clinton Foundation = money in Clinton's pocket"

I have seen no evidence of that, either.

Chelsea Clinton/Net worth
Image result for chelsea clinton net worth
$15 million
Chelsea Clinton net worth: Chelsea Clinton is the daughter of former President of the United States Bill Clinton and United States Secretary of State Hiliary Rodham Clinton and has a net worth of $15 million.
Chelsea Clinton Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth
http://www.celebritynetworth.com › democrats


Nothing to see here, move along now.

I'm sure NBC gave Chelsea that $600,000 reporter job based on her long history in journalism.

Chelsea is a filthy rich ugly bitch. I wouldn't trade a single cent of that 15 million to look as fucking ugly as her. Maybe she'll get some plastic surgery with the money. She's fucking hideous looking. How the fuck can someone turn out looking that fucking ugly is beyond me.

[Monker]

As I said, the most corrupt, crooked politician I've ever seen.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e ... -her-state

Monker and the like - I honestly don't care who you vote for . But a vote for this woman is a vote against everything we want politics to be. Yes, a lot of people on all sides are like her to a degree (though she is by far the queen in this country), but we are never going to fix it by electing her and rewarding her for her greed at the expense of our country. What message does it send that half this country wants a person to lead? I get the anti-Trump vote. But there are others. Everyone can go on about a vast right wing conspiracy but that's just lame. This is the AP. Many news sources are talking about her health and her foundation and her pay-to-play methods. Yes, much of the media is trying to give her a pass, but ask them who they want to win. It's her. They are doing all they can for this disgusting greedy woman. For the good of it all, don't help them.

Dude, you are suggesting that the SoS should not have meetings with foreign leaders and such because it creates a conflict of interest. If she can't do that, she can't do her job.

As for the donations, to prove some type of corruption, it's not enough to simply point out a conflict of interest....you have to prove that it bought some type of influence. I have not seen that part the equation. In the equation of "donations to the Clinton foundation = corruption".....all anybody focuses on is the donation. That is bullshit. Find the corruption, and then show it was rooted at the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is this suggestion of : "donation to the Clinton Foundation = money in Clinton's pocket"

I have seen no evidence of that, either. If the name of this organization were changed to the "Red Cross" and Bill was CEO, or whatever...I seriously doubt these accusation would be out there. These accusations are basically saying Bill and Hillary are stealing from the foundation....or the foundation is giving money to the Clonton's. Neither of which is true.

This is just plain ignorant, more likely willful blindness. There is truly overwhelming evidence of pay for play. This is the AP reporting, not Hannity or Trump. In about 5 minutes, you can find how donors got access and favors and positions.

I have about 20 points I could cover with you, but really, what's the point. Again, not saying this is a Clinton vs Trump thing. You clearly believe that the government and its "leaders" are above the people and I do not. Much of your blindness is actually the fault of both parties dividing this country to the point many, many people defend their team regardless of the obvious. It's sad. It's become the worst of us.

It's hard to be blind to something that just isn't there. It has been posted and talked about endlessly about the "pay" part of "Pay for Play". Having "access" is not "play". Having the SoS intervene on some matter on your behalf when she otherwise wouldn't is "play". The Uranium One deal, for example, is bullshit because it is the SoS doing the SoS's job to vote on such a thing. I have seen NO EVIDENCE that she tried to influence other departments, or the NRC, to approve the deal. So, there IS NO "PLAY". The same goes for the latest bullshit about the "sovereign crown prince of Agrabah, or wherever the hell is is from. It's not "play" for the SoS to meet with such a person - it's HER JOB, whether it is through offical channels or not. Now, if I gave 10 million dollars to the Clinton foundation and asked for Trump to be killed, and then they killed Trump...that would be "play" because it is not the SoS's job to assassinate people. That's the NSA or CIA's job.

You guys are just going about listing donations and then saying "access". What *I* am saying is if you want to make a point, start with the "play" part and then backtrack it to a donation. Trump is shot by Clinton. A note is found that I asked her to kill him. Then it is shown I donated $10million. THAT is how these things should be looked at. If you start with the pay part of the equation, you are just muddying the waters with political bullshit and propaganda.

[Monker]

Memorex, with monker it's more like blind stupidity. Have you ever seen anyone defend Clinton to the point of looking like a clueless idiot that "isn't going to vote for her"? Gary johnson was on the Five yesterday. I really didn't know anything about him. I hear alot of people say they will vote for him. Like monker, he looked like a clueless idiot. They destroyed him. He'd answer a question and they would just shut him down. For example, his answer to ISIS? Do nothing. Leave them alone. They are over there.

He's a Libertarian. Libertarian's do not believe in committing resources to a conflict that does not directly affect the United States. Ron/Rand Paul basically had the same view. So, yes, I absolutely agree with that view - and have posted it here. THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE - NOT THE UNITED STATES.

Any "conservative" should understand that we are $19 trillion in debt and can't afford these wars in the middle east. The more $'s you are willing to commit, the less conservative you are.