2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

I guess that is the most bizarre part of this. It is the exact same crap everybody has been recently doing yet somehow in this one instance it is OUTRAGEOUS. Especially since Clinton voted to reform this system when given the chance.

But hey at the end of the day it is not like I was under the impression the Clintons do not live in the gray area.

Their name is on the group, which somehow makes it more significant than Citizens for Kumquats or whatever.

Ah I see. Remarkably poor branding there.

But my problem has always been that regardless of how shady the Clintons are, Hillary is the only candidate who is even remotely acceptable to me. But, you know, them being shady in the 90s didn't hurt the country much so I don't see why it would again.

Yeah the 90s actually look quite rosy in hindsight.

[Sheilbh]

I was just coming to post that story.

And for those (Minsky ) whose defence is that the Clinton Foundation did good work, and the Clinton's didn't personally benefit, so what's the harm...

Well for starters they did benefit - the Foundation paid their travel (Charter or First class, of course) to any number of international destinations.

But mostly at their level it isn't about money.  They were pulling it in pretty good coin from the speeches.  But it's about influence.  It gave them two billion dollars to be big players in the world of international development.  It allowed them to keep a staff of 350 employed, give her supporters good jobs, and pick out the best and brightest for Hillary's campaigns.

But just in case I wasn't clear though, my motto for this campaign is

Agreed.

I think it's part of that sort of globalisation of ethics. Our politicians nowadays are hanging round with the ultra-rich billionaires and often autocrats at places like Davos. I think they see that now as where they belong rather than retiring to be comfortably wealthy from a mid-century British, or American perspective, they are measuring themselves against Kazakh and Russian oligarchs, Sheikhs and rather amoral masters of the universe. Add to the fact that they are now largely winning office and retiring young they have many years to do that. I've no doubt it's well meant - whether it's Blair or Clinton shilling for the Kazakh regime - but I think it's undoubtedly corrupting.

[jimmy olsen]

[Monoriu]

Why does she appear to be so upset?

[jimmy olsen]

She's married to Trump. Also that apartment is garish and gaudy as fuck.

In other news, Bill O'reilly and Scott Brown have been added to the Fox News harassment scandal.

http://latest.com/2016/08/bill-oreilly-ex-senator-scott-brown-named-in-explosive-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-against-fox-news/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=ta&utm_campaign=iwvo12

[Tonitrus]

Also that apartment is garish and gaudy as fuck.

I remember some show on which he was giving a tour of it...your description is very apt.

[Admiral Yi]

I've been thinking what a weak candidate Hillary is and how lucky she is to be facing Trump.

[jimmy olsen]

I've been thinking what a weak candidate Hillary is and how lucky she is to be facing Trump.

This just came up for debate at 538

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/has-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-been-lucky-or-good/

[Monoriu]

That picture reminds me of my initial impression of Trump.  I thought he was funny, hammy and harmless.  I wouldn't mind if his main policy proposal is to turn the White House into Golden Trump House.  That would be fun in its own way.  But he stopped being funny very early into his campaign. 

[DGuller]

I've been thinking what a weak candidate Hillary is and how lucky she is to be facing Trump.

Was it really luck, or something else? 

[Barrister]

I've been thinking what a weak candidate Hillary is and how lucky she is to be facing Trump.

You're hardly the only one.

[Phillip V]

I've been thinking what a weak candidate Hillary is and how lucky she is to be facing Trump.

And previously Sanders.

[Admiral Yi]

Why does she appear to be so upset?

That's a pouty model expression.

[Admiral Yi]

In the world of politics currying favor isn't the same corruption. Corruption is an illegal quid pro quo for services rendered, or similar things. If we viewed "currying favor" as corruption then no legislative deals could get passed, no international treaties could be signed etc. We live in a world where guys can go straight from the boardroom of a major company, to government office, take actions to benefit that company as a public official, then later go back to said company's board room and collect massive pay checks. That is 100% kosher in our system. Yet somehow a charitable foundation and donations to it represent this grave immorality? I just don't see it.

If anything, the Clintons are less entangled than most high level politicians who have deep corporate ties, because the Clintons have no direct financial interest in the spending of the Clinton Foundation. This seems way less concerning to me than the business ties of Bush and Cheney, for example.

This is a lawyer's response to a PR problem.

[Razgovory]

I've been thinking what a weak candidate Hillary is and how lucky she is to be facing Trump.

Was it really luck, or something else? 

This is the GOP reaping what it had sowed in the Southern Strategy.