Trump/Hillary/US Presidential Election General.
Old friends become rivals?
or
Trump being nice to important people?
Bernie has been beaten and Hillary is the Democratic Nominee.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/hillary-clinton-nomination-2016/
Hillary won with 49% of pleged delegates but 76% of Superdelegate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Trump became the presumptive nominee for the Republican party on the 4th of May
http://time.com/4317508/meet-presumptive-nominee-donald-trump/
Despite losing the Demoratic nomination, there is no denying Bernie has proved popular with a lot of people. His rallies attract large crowds.
Trump has also built up huge popular support.
Unlike Bernie and Trump, Hillary doesn't quite pack out stadiums wih her rallies.
Trump started controversy when he said in Jun 2015 at a rally:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
One of trumps most popular policies is to replace the current border fence ( pictured ) with a wall.
>>2676158
The US has an almost 2000 Mile border with the US.
Whilst some feel the wall is a racist policy others say the current measures don't properly secure our borders and the rule of law.
>>2676148
She actually isn't the democratic nominee, she is the likely nominee. The super delegates are unbound.
Hillary has raised nearly $300 million and spent over $200 million already.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f
Trump has raised ( and spent ) significantly less about $60 million. A Large portion of that comes form self funding.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864
Trump has tried to paint Hillary as "Crooked Hillary"
Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Whilst Clinton has portrayed Trump as racist.
Hillary supporters LIKE Trump policies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxXty6vEBA.
LOL
Who knows what whacky adventures Donald and Hillary will get up to between now and November 8, 2016.
>>2676163
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc
>>2676227
When I first saw the "Bernie Math" video screen I thought it was laying into his socialist spend, spend, spend.
>>2676390
spend spend spend?
>>2676151
Clinton has 54% of the delegates already polled without the superdelegates. If you removed superdelegates from the election entirely, she still would have won.
>>2676737
>expecting someone who supports Sanders to be able to do maths
>superdelegates
>primaries
>national convention
Burger politics make zero sense to me. Where I live, we vote once. We cast a ballot, and whoever gets the most in each riding becomes a Member of Parliament and whichever party wins the most seats in Parliament gets to be in charge. The leader of the winning party becomes Prime Minister. They campaign for a few months and buy a lot of shitty tv ads and then we drag ourselves to the local polling station, write down an "X" and then go home and get on with our lives.
Each political party chooses it's own leader, it's not contested by the general public, although I assume that if you buy a membership in a party you get a say. It's the same at the provincial level, except the parties are different. It's all pretty painless and takes a lot less time.
How long has the American election been going on? It feels like years and the two main parties haven't even faced off yet.
>>2676758
It's not terribly different here except everyone except the big 2 parties are irrelevant.
The way they choose their candidates is kinda bullshit with super delegates and winner-take-all states.
Delegates and electoral colleges are outdated, desu. They made sense at a time when communication was slow, but nowadays you can just go with the popular vote.
>>2676737
2 days ago it was correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&oldid=724241850
When Hillary was declared Presumptive nominee she did NOT have the majority of pledged delegates. It was only AFTER being declared presumptive nominee that she gained a majority of pleged delegates. Superdelegates have been very important to her.
And as a graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Delegate_count_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.svg/1280px-Delegate_count_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries.svg.png
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
"Last night, the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted — surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-07/symbolic-end-farcical-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-th
The Clinton campain has focused on telling Bernie supporters "Bernie can't win" when he could have & "it's all over" long before it was. Super delegates were an important part of this attack on Bernie supporters moral. It's a cheap and dirty trick but then it's been effective for Hillary.
>>2676158
They should just build a deep spike pit on the US side of the wall, so when they jump down they get impaled.
Don't talk to me or my son ever again
>>2676870
Oh, horseshit. She always had a lead in both delegates and popular vote.
It was a two person race, so even if Clinton *did* use them to her advantage, then what? People who would have voted for Sanders voted for her instead to... beat Sanders.
Nice republicuck pundit links to back up your farcical claim, though.
Trump trumps everyone in flip flopping
Trump seems bored and irritated when he has to talk policy, which is vague platitudes. He only seems to want to talk about himself.
>>2677010
She had a head start because people knew Hillary. Bernie got momentum and was catching up and then Hillary got negative. Right from the start.
"Bernie can't win a presidential race he's too left wing"
"Bernie Bros are misogynist"
"We all need to unite and let me me, Hillary, win. "
Fear, negativity and manipulation.
They've tried to take the momentum out of a very successful grass roots campaign. Hillarys campaign is all just well paid political advisors telling her what to say and shitting on the other side. Bernie didn't go negative. Hillary is well funded by corrupt bankers who are afraid of Bernie because he would sort them out. If Hillary wasn't so well funded Bernie would be the Nominee by now and you know it. Hillarys politics is nothing but a shell that's for sale to the highest paying corporate shills. All Hillary has done is stand in the way of real policy progress in exchange for our first and what will probably be the worst female president.
Bernie has real people fighting for him, Hillary has to buy her friends.
https://www.the-newshub.com/us-politics/are-hillary-clintons-paid-online-trolls-shutting-down-bernie-sanders-groups-on-social-media#!
http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/26/1491618/-Twitter-Exec-Censors-WhichHillary-in-advance-of-Sunday-Fundraiser-Key-Primaries
>>2676147
Politicians don't have friends or rivals, they have those who can do them good and those who can't. Back in the day Trump donated much to the Clintons. The second he donates money again to Hillary or Bill they will all pose together like that again.
>>2677131
Only autists wanna listen to policy speeches anyway
>>2677199
Only kids want to listen to anything else.
Feel the Johnson 2016
>>2677206
said no one
>>2677216
I feel my johnson all the time
>>2676162
>Whilst some feel the wall is a racist policy
Because wanting people to follow legal immigration protocols and report to customs is "racist." It's quite simply appalling that 11 million (million!) illegal aliens could be allowed to enter and reside in a country. Controlling who enters a country and in what circumstances is just a basic question of sovereignty. Illegal immigration is also inherently unfair since only south americans are allowed in but poor people from the rest of the world don't have a chance. It's "citizenship by proximity."
>>2677300
yeah..me too..he´s attached to me, i thinkl!
>>2676758
they're choosing a god
>>2676871
that's just terrible man, hasn't US learned anything from history. walls don't lead to anything but more problems.
>>2676146
Don't forget to donate to Donald Trump's campaign
Also, Buy Trumpcoin if you have a few extra bucks. Marketing is starting soon so get it while it's low.
>>2676146
>>2676146
new logo
>>2677658
That's actually the old logo.
>>2676146
Looks like ERB spam.
Trumpcoin.rocks
Should have called it orangecoin. Or maybe combovercoin.
>>2677901
>ERB?
google says "epic rap battles"
>>2677470
Mexico has a wall on their southern border...
>>2679640
False
http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/
>>2679614
ERB Trucking?
>>2679605
>>2679608
Clinton's logo looks like a fascist symbol, sort of like the Arrow Cross. I can just see that thing decorating armbands and military vehicles.
Rand Paul's logo is objectively the best, the Perry, Huckabee, and Chaffee (literally who?) logos are too busy. The O'Malley logo doesn't tell you who he even is, I had to google it. Despite that it looks kind of nice, simple. Sanders's logo is pretty good, Cruz and Fiorina's are average.
Jeb! is the worst, not only did he get owned but it looks like the logo of a fast food restaurant, not even a good one but something like IHop where the goal is to get as fat as possible for the lowest amount of money.
Also what's this business about using first names? Nigga we ain't friends.
>>2679883
http://www.ipsnews.net/2010/09/migration-latin-america-another-wall-blocks-route-to-us/
>According to the head of customs for Mexico’s tax administration, Raúl Díaz, in order to stop boats carrying contraband, the southern Mexican state of Chiapas is building a wall along the border river Suchiate, similar to the one the United States is building along its southern border with Mexico
Planned NOT completed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3385694/Mexico-moves-lock-border-wall-government-tries-stem-flow-migrants-heading-north-tightening-porous-southern-border.html
Mexico has border controls.
http://wlrn.org/post/riding-beast-migrant-crisis-president-obama-calls-urgent
Riding The Beast: A Migrant Crisis President Obama Calls Urgent
There’s a network of freight trains that runs the length of Mexico from its southernmost border with Guatemala north to the United States. In addition to grain, corn or scrap metal, these trains are carrying an increasing number of undocumented immigrants who aim to cross into the U.S.
Border controls, Problems but no wall ( yet )
<pic of "the beast"
It’s Still Bill Clinton, but the Old Magic Seems to Be Missing
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bill-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0
What's up with Bill? Clinton's hand appears to tremble during Iowa rally as he promotes Hillary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3404305/Bill-Clinton-s-hand-appears-tremble-Iowa-rally-promotes-Hilary.html
What Is Wrong with Bill Clinton?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coUPMlUirPo
we're so fucked.
>>2676146
I was talking politics with some people, and we were talking about Trump and Clinton, and i was like "Well you know, even if Trump doesn't pass, i'm not sure we're gonna be much better with Clinton." and i started to joke around and say "Well Clinton is a republican anyway."
Was i wrong? Was i stupid?
>>2681245
She was a republican when she was younger - a goldwater girl infact - and she is to the right of Bernie.
>>2681693
Thanx
>>2681693
This is proven to be a hoax
>>2681693
>tfw totally would have hit young hillary
>>2681736
>I was an active Young Republican, and, later, a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit and straw cowboy hat emblazoned with the slogan "AuH2O." -Hillary Clinton
Just google "Hillary Goldwater". Everyone is to the right of Bernie so that's not an issue.
>>2681736
FACT: Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" according to Hillary:
Hear it straight from Hillary:
https://youtu.be/WycwDYlOCDw?t=68
Thinly veiled Trump shill thread?
>>2676159
>The US has an almost 2000 Mile border with the US.
civil war when?
The dems are rallying around Hillary to curb stomp Trump while the GOP is now just realizing they nominated a buffoonish blowhard lmao
>>2681693
>>2682613
She has form for subtle racism:
http://observer.com/2016/04/bill-clintons-racist-defense-of-the-super-predator-myth/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/8/1467336/-Hillary-Clinton-Gangs-of-kids-are-super-predators-with-no-conscience-no-empathy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronda-lee/hillarys-superpredator-comment_b_9655052.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4nmRZx9nc
>>2682706
>The dems are rallying around Hillary to curb stomp Trump while the GOP is now just realizing they nominated a buffoonish blowhard lmao
The dems are reluctantly backing Hillary ( her biggest asset used to be Bill but he's ill or something ). The GOP have slowly been coming to terms with Trumps "popularity" for a long time.
The big difference between Trump and Hillary is that Trump is strongly liked by his supporters and strongly disliked by his detractors. Hillary is only kind of liked by her supporters and dislike by her detractors. They both have negative approval ratings.
>>2680001
The blue in the Rand logo is too dark. Also the flame is also badly drawn. The Bernie and Carly logos come across as the clearest. While I agree the Chafee logo has a lot going on, if used wisely, it could get away with it. Not for use on a cowded background, though.
I follow you on the rest of the logos
>>2682726
Hillary's ratings have gone up while Trump's ratings have recently tanked.
Now that the strange honeymoon between the Bernie Bros and the Trumpnecks is over, Hillary is no longer going to be attacked from both sides, so her favorability is going to continue to climb.
Trump is doomed. He doesn't even seem to want to be the president. Instead of mercifully dropping out, we're going to have to watch him decay like a rotting carcass.
cheeto jesus lmao
dumpin'
>>2683273
>>2683274
>>2676156
How is that a bad statement
>>2683284
He said mexicans that cross the border, with some exceptions he "assume"s exist, are rapists. Can you not read?
USA is fucked isn't it...
Miss me yet?
>>2683379
It's a fact that what he said is true, a lot of crime does come from over the border
>>2683655
>“When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I'd like to see the right's reaction if a candidate from a European nation said that.
AWWWWWW SHUCKY DUCKY
SHUCKY DUCKY MASSA
>>2683858
But that's not true, America may be sending shitty tourists but I doubt they're adding to the crime rate of a country
>>2684095
It's hyperbole and a sweeping generalization. Just like Trump's.
>>2682620
Containment thread mostly - anyone can post.
Because Both candidates are unpopular I would guess that Both campaigns will be focused on exploiting that unpopularity with negative campaigning and this is going to wash over into here.
Greasy sleazy pork ball
>>2684223
>Because Both candidates are unpopular I would guess that Both campaigns will be focused on exploiting that unpopularity with negative campaigning and this is going to wash over into here.
Oh, there's going to be some high quality discussion and reasoned discourse, that's for sure. Haha, it's going to be a shitfest :-D
>>2684826
Trump has told his campaign manager Coery Lewandowski "You're Fired!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/corey-lewandowski-donald-trump.html
Archive link of same page:
http://archive.is/leGR6
Basically a slow start to Presidential campaign and not enough experience.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
A Britbong tired to assinate Trump using a cops gun. Fails miserably.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/trump-rally-las-vegas.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=politics
http://archive.is/tPz7j
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
#BunglingBrit #BlunderingBritian
>>2676923
My wife's son*
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
>>2685313
"Shooter" was ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6785/update-guy-who-tried-kill-donald-trump-was-illegal-hank-berrien
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Trump's campaign going broke lol
fake billionaire loser
>>2676152
Trump is a racist, what else does anyone need to know?
>>2686813
It's not that he's a fake billionaire.
It's that he's not willing to put any of his own money into the campaign.
>>2686927
He's actually funneling some of what little campaign money he has into his businesses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html
>/hr/ is the last place on 4chan not overtaken by /pol/
neat
>>2686873
Trump is a realist*, what else does anyone need to know?
>fixd for you
>>2687194
>Trump runs for president
>a realist
kill yourself
>>2676156
>“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Fixed. Please refrain from posting lies.
>>2687513
>When Mexico sends it's people, their not sending there best. There not sending you. Their not sending you. Their sending people that have lots of problems, and there bringing those problems with us. There bringing taco bowls. Their bringing crime. There rapists. And some, I assume, are blah people.”
>>2686813
>>2686927
Forbes calculate he's worth $4.5 billion.
http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/
the thing is if he entirely self funds people will accuse him of "buying the presidency" and the presidency "being up for sale".
But hey Hillary is doing well with those speeches. $21 million in 2 years for That's a real entrepreneur.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/
$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
together Bill and Hillary have shown that if you put your mind to it anyone can earn $153 million is speeches.
>In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.
It just goes to prove that the american dream is alive. If you are willing to work hard and give lots of speeches to companies with a vested in interest is lax government regulation anyone can become a multi millionaire. People are just criticising her because they are too lazy to go out and give a quarter of a million dollar speeches themselves.
I don't see how she can say "no" to these people after they have given her personnally all this money.
>>2688106
>together Bill and Hillary have shown that if you put your mind to it anyone can earn $153 million is speeches.
I understand the controversy is about the special interests, but all of the former presidents and politicians have made truckloads of cash through doing speech circuits. Bush I think gets $10-$20,000 per speech.
And I'll bet that, dollar for dollar, there a more unsavory ways Trump has made money in the past than any other candidate.
>>2687513
says the guy who raped a 13 year old girl. He's worse than all of them combined.
>>2688533
>but all of the former presidents and politicians have made truckloads of cash
>former presidents and politicians
>former
>former
>former
She's about to take power probably. How is she going to say no to people who have given her and her husband so much?
There's one thing regaling people with life/business lessons and anecdotes from your time in office. It's another thing taking a whole heap of PERSONAL money from business THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LEGISLATE REGULATIONS ETC.
HOW can she be objective when these companies have enriched her and her husband so much?
>>2688552
who raped a 13 year old girl?
>>2688736
Oh you sweet summer child.
>>2688832
Explain how Hillary making personnal income from "speeches" she won't release the transcrpit to, taking money from her political campaign AND for her "charity" foundation making her "On the hook" for favours is somehow "summer".
She's fucking corrupt. Even orgnistions like Charity Navigator, an organisation designed to weed out corrupt charities has given up on rating the Clinton foundation.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204
>We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.
For a big charity run by a former president that is pretty damning. They aren't going to openly say it's corrupt but it's a fucking good hint.
Look at the donations to the foundation. It's banks and middle east oil money. Why accept money from Saudi Arabia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Greater_than_.2425_million
Hillary is corrupt and she's on the hook to the very organisations she's supposed to be regulating in government.
It's pathetic. You're supposed to find out they're corrupt ONCE they get into power NOT before.
>>2688552
Got any pictures of this apparent act?
>>2689158
who raped a 13 yo girl?
>>2689167
Fun Video time
Trump BTFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLGG8VlDAOc
Hillary fans on Trump - pure comedy gold
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxXty6vEBA
>>2689157
I'm not defending any of that. But none of it equals "corruption" (eg: where is the crime? where is the illegality?)
>>2689313
(1/5)
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors
2 of the *Current* board are corrupt.
Facts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://pastebin.com/YU5Xeis9
TL;DR Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton wants uranium from Kazakhstan however the Kazak leader ( of 19 years) is a MAJOR human rights violator and election rigger which the quite rightly USA dislikes the Kazak leader. Frank Giustra has meeting with Kazak Leader but the deal doesn't happen until Bill Clinton lends his support and says Kazak leader is suddenly a good guy despite evidence. Kazak Leader signs "monster deal" for uramium with Frank Giustra that "Shocked the market". Shorty after Frank Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation. Frank Giustra gets very rich from a deal that would not be possible without Bill Clintons help
pay for influence
Rolando Gonzalez-Bunster - another current board member.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/revealed-four-clinton-foundation-trustees-charged-or-convicted-of-financial-crimes/
>... there is current Clinton Foundation board member and trustee Rolando Gonzalez Bunster, who “has been named in a fraud case in the Dominican Republic involving his company InterEnergy. The charges were filed by the Dominican government’s Anti-Corruption Alliance (ADOCCO). In 2013, Bunster was charged along with officials of a government agency concerning alleged ‘ballooned’ fees charged to the government.
>>2689426
(2/5)
Incidently the clinton foundation had recieved donations from the Dominican Republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#.2410.2C000.2C001_to_.2425_million
and also awarded their Prseident the "Clinton Global Citizen Award"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Clinton_Global_Citizen_Awards
The USA gives $66 million is aid ( which makes you wonder why $10 to $25 million is going to the clinton foundation)
http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/l/50/Dominican-Republic
this aid was overseen by state department - inlcuding Hillary Clinton whilst she was in charge at the state department.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/revealed-four-clinton-foundation-trustees-charged-or-convicted-of-financial-crimes/
Other former Trustees have been charged with criminal offences
Vinod Gupta-
After Bill Clinton left the White House in January 2001, Gupta hired him as a consultant,
In 2010, Gupta was charged along with two other employees of Infogroup for "their roles in a scheme in which the CEO funneled illegal compensation to himself in the form of perks worth millions of dollars." The SEC said he used $9.5 million in corporate funds for personal gain and his "lavish lifestyle".[8] The three later settled with the SEC without admitting wrongdoing. He paid $7.4 million in fines and penalties and agreed to be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company, according to the SEC
Victor Dahdaleh
Then there is trustee Victor Dahdaleh, who “was charged by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in Great Britain with paying more than 35 million pounds in bribes to executives in Bahrain to win contracts of more than 2 billion pounds,”.
Many other high profile donors that have met the Clintons are or have been charged with corrupt business practics. There's too many to name so check the link below.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419791/clinton-foundation-reeks-crooks-thieves-and-hoods-deroy-murdock
>>2689428
(3/5)
Then there is the arms deals whilst Hillary was secretary of state.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-Clintons-state-department-1934187
That's a very good article and is really worth reading but the summary:
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.
The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
Pay for play.
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family
>hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family
This is how they do it. They don't make money from the Clinton foundation directly. They are not that stupid. It's a political front to keep them relevant and put them in a position of power and influence. The money comes from "speeches and consultancies".
http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107
Firms Paid Bill Clinton Millions As They Lobbied Hillary Clinton
TL;DR Bill was getting paid a LOT for speeches to the very same companies lobbying Hillary. They detail the different companies and what they were lobbying for in the article.
>>2689430
(4/5)
More corruption
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m/article/2551428
While Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, Bill Clinton gave two speeches in Saudi Arabia, earning a total of $600,000.
In January 2011, for example, Bill Clinton spoke at a global business forum in Riyadh founded by the Saudi Investment Authority and sponsored by the Dabbagh Group, a commercial colossus with close ties to the Saudi royal family.
His fee for the speech: $300,000.
During Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department, Bill Clinton also gave four speeches in the United Arab Emirates, earning $1.1 million. For two speeches in Egypt, he earned $425,000.
UAE-linked entities also have donated at least $2.7 to $11.5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Egyptian entities have donated at least $250,000 to $750,000.
In Panama, Bill Clinton earned $325,000 for one speech. And in the Cayman Islands — a notorious offshore money haven — $225,000 for a speech, noted a State Department document, "at a ticketed event that will target the business community in Grand Cayman."
This is how they make their money. The Clinton foundation keeps them relevant, powerful, connected, influential, provides good PR and an excuse to meet with dodgy characters. They don't make their money out of the Clinton foundation, they make it out of speeches and consultancy.
>>2689435
(5/5)
They're getting rich.
Hillary and Bill Clinton made $139.1 million over the past eight years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/hillary-and-bill-clinton-paid-43-million-in-federal-taxes
Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company.
In 2014, Bill Clinton made $9 million off of paid speeches and $6.4 million in consulting fees.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-25/author-alleges-bill-clinton-just-quit-education-company-because-of-clinton-cash-
TL;DR Just after Bill was hired by private company Laureate Hillary ,in her role as secretary of state made "Laureate part of her State Department Global Partnership."
----------
In the old days if you wanted to bribe a politician to get things done you gave them cash in a briefcase or a worthwhile "freebie". Pay for Play. Getting paid because you are in a position of power. The Clintons however have refined the system so it's practically legal. Either donate to the power base ( the clinton foundation) or hire Bill or Hillary for very expensive 6 figure speeches/consultancy and get help from government or influence. It's corruption, Damn clever corruption but it's corruption.
***TL;DR*** The Clinton foundation has had many corrupt people as donors and on the board. Donating to the Clinton foundation has for a long time been a good way to curry political favour in business and arms deals. They have accepted money from many human rights abusing countries who in return have not only been granted favourable deals but have also made hired Bill and sometimes Hillary for high priced speeches ($200,000 minimum) . They have been caught multiple times with very profitable conflict of interests. Amazingly not many people seem to give a damn.
PS sorry about the
formatting
and spteltingg mustaokes it was a rush job.
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
t
r
u
m
p
coin
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
trumpcoin.com
t
r
u
m
p
coin
trumpcoin.com
>>2677470
>*cough* Israel *cough*
>*cough* Mexico's southern border *cough*
>>2688533
>And I'll bet
Really makes you think.
>>2690066
He polls as less trustworthy than Hillary Clinton. Think about that.
>>2690391
>>2690394
>>2690395
>>2690396
>>2690397
>>2690398
>>2690399
>>2690400
>>2690402
>>2690403
>>2690404
>>2690405
>>2690406
>>2690406
Clinton conspiracy theory bingo. That's a good game.
>>2690446
>$0.03 was deposited into your account
>>2690581
>Murder and money laundering
Twenty years of this stupid conspiracy crap hasn't worked yet. Must need to keep trying.
>>2690596
>>2690446
The murders are unprovable as is the money laundering. However there is no doubt that donors to Clinton foundation and those who hired Bill at great expense for speaking/consultancy had a far greater chance of getting favorable decision from Hillary's state department. The Clinton foundation has some dodgy people attached BUT as long as people talk about murders and money laundering the corrupt things that are a matter of public record will go unchallenged and may never even be discussed publicly.
>>2691173
Don't most politicians give favors for donations though?
>>2691184
There's a difference between "party/candidate donations or lobbying" and "Personal enrichment".
Donating to a party or a candidate in the hope that once they get in power you will get favorable legislation is unfortunately pretty common. With the Clintons it goes much further. The accusation is that donating to the "Clinton foundation" AND hiring Bill to do a few speeches ( at a cost of 100s of thousands of dollar$ ) was the way to get policy passed. Bill earned Millions for speeches from companies and foreign governments hoping to get favorable legislation from Hillary. Bills millions earned this way obviously contributes to Bill and Hillarys married net worth. They got rich passing policy.
TL;DR - Clintons got rich. It was more than campaign donations they got very rich PERSONALLY in exchange for policy favours.
>>2691173
>The murders are unprovable as is the money laundering
Haha!
> With the Clintons it goes much further.
allegedly
If anything, the result of this election will prove one thing:
A.) Democracy is dead (Clinton)
B.) Democracy is very much alive, and even outright cheating on an election can not stop the hordes of ignorant racist redneck voters (Trump)
Either way everyone loses.
Republicans: "We need someone in office to represent the common citizen, people like us!"
Republicans: "Let's elect this billionaire playboy elitist so he can sign bills into law for the sole purpose of furthering his own empire!"
Democrats: "I don't know how Hillary is nominee. We all voted for Bernie."
>>> http://www.strawpoll.me/10632766/r <<<
vote for our new president
>>2692200
pistachio is wining ???
Don't anybody even say to just vote for the lesser of two evils, either. If you think like that you are part of the problem
>>2691996
>allegedly
FACT: It's been proven with publicly available records.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://pastebin.com/YU5Xeis9
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/revealed-four-clinton-foundation-trustees-charged-or-convicted-of-financial-crimes/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419791/clinton-foundation-reeks-crooks-thieves-and-hoods-deroy-murdock
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-Clintons-state-department-193418
http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-approved-215-bill-clinton-speeches-controversial-consulting-deal-worth-48m/article/2551428
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-31/hillary-and-bill-clinton-paid-43-million-in-federal-taxes
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-25/author-alleges-bill-clinton-just-quit-education-company-because-of-clinton-cash-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Contributors
This is the problem with Hillary supporters. So long as The Daily Show tells them every criticism is a right wing conspiracy they're happy clapping along to whatever the dems tell them. Read the facts.
------------------------
INB4 "daily show is a good source of news" - no it's not. people who "learn something from the daily show" etc are the LEAST well informed:
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/200-6.gif
http://www.people-press.org/2004/01/11/cable-and-internet-loom-large-in-fragmented-political-news-universe/
The only study that ever found the daily show a "good source of news" did a survery where they did NOT ask if people only watched the daily show but just asked what people watched in total and they statistically re-invented the numbers - It's bullshit. Anyone with any knowledge of the news an ounce of common sense could see how incomplete and bias the daily show is.
>>2676758
Burger politics in one easy infographic
A data map of 2012 vote (romney obama)
>>2692194
"Ignorant"
There's that fucking buzzword again
2012 data
2012 data again
amerikkka
<Tea party literally less electable than being black
also interesting:
http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/04/4-6-2015_LEDE.png
>>2691996
>Haha
"If I pretend I'm laughing I must have won the argument"
-a teenager on 4chan
The trail of dirt, corruption and personnal enrichment should be something we're ashamed of not something we ignore, normalise accept or elect.
>>2692315
She dindu nuffin. She is a gud person.
>>2692315
It's the same problem as with most conspiracy theories - too many people would have to have been involved and in the know, for it to be feasible, and somehow, after hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money the Republicans have spent since the 90s, investigating the Clintons, they've found zero evidence for this conspiracy of the POTUS having people murdered. Zip, zilch, nada.
It takes a special kind of stupid.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
>>2692226
>FACT: It's been proven with publicly available records.
What has? Anything illegal?
>>2692226
>INB4 "daily show is a good source of news" - no it's not. people who "learn something from the daily show" etc are the LEAST well informed:
>http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/200-6.gif
>http://www.people-press.org/2004/01/11/cable-and-internet-loom-large-in-fragmented-political-news-universe/
>The only study that ever found the daily show a "good source of news" did a survery where they did NOT ask if people only watched the daily show but just asked what people watched in total and they statistically re-invented the numbers - It's bullshit. Anyone with any knowledge of the news an ounce of common sense could see how incomplete and bias the daily show is.
None of that says what you think it says, and yes, PEW studies have found Daily Show viewers as more well informed than cable news viewers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/16/11946/daily-show-fox-knowledge/
>>2687628
I know what you're trying to do. But he didn't call all Mexicans rapists.
>>2688552
Oh, are you talking about that false article The Huffington Post put out, accusing Trump of being a pedophile? The same HP that has repeatedly libeled him and recently had their credentials removed and is still butthurt about it? That Huffington Post?
>>2692230
Thanks anon.
>>2689158
>>2689163
>>2688738
>>2688552
>>2692391
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html
Here's a good article covering the whole jeffery epstein affair.
>>2692377
(1 of 2 )
This article
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
cites this study:
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/
>Despite that most people get news from multiple sources, the aim of researchers was to isolate the effects of each type of news source. The effects were calculated using multinomial logistic regression, a technique that allows researchers to isolate the impact of one variable on an outcome.
>multinomial logistic regression
They did NOT ask who "just watched the daily show". They asked for total news coverage and used multinomial logistic regression to make massive assumptions about the habits rather than using study data. This is very poor way of getting information about the effectiveness of the daily show especially when they could have just asked directly.
The study also shows that MSNBC,Fox and no news are all the same within the margin of error. However bad you think Fox news and MSNBC are they are not worse than watching no news at all. The use of multinomial logistic regression is bullshit when they could have just asked.
This article you cite:
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/16/11946/daily-show-fox-knowledge/
cites this study:
http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/
Which concludes that if Daily show is "one of your news sources" you are more likely to informed. This is NOT the same as the daily show being a good source of news. It shows that people who watch the daily show AND other news sources are well informed.This is probably skewed by news addicts who are more likely to watch a comedy show about the news.
(cont.)
>>2692377
>>2692614
(2 of 2)
BOTH studies also use "identifying people in politics" as way of testing knowledge. When a comedy program spends a lot of it's time ridiculing politicians, viewers are going to know who the people are but that isn't the same as being knowledgeable about current policy, policy direction, the pragmatic or ideological parameters within which policy is made or the implications of policy/ideology.
The study I cited:
http://www.people-press.org/2004/01/11/cable-and-internet-loom-large-in-fragmented-political-news-universe/
*especially* this graph here:
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/200-6.gif
Shows that if you regularly learned something from "the daily show" you are in the one of the least knowlagble news consumers around.
This would suggest that people who use dailyshow as " a show to learn about the news" were NOT knowleable. There's a difference between watching the daily show for laughs and watching it for news.
People watching for laughs seem to do okay people watching it for actual news don't.
But why do you need a study to know that the daily show is biased and poor source of news? If you watch both the news and the daily show you would know that just through common sense.
>>2692618
>BOTH studies also use "identifying people in politics" as way of testing knowledge
Also, their State's Governor, the president of Russia, the trade deficit, the party controlling the House, that the Chief Justice was a conservative, etc..
>Shows that if you regularly learned something from "the daily show" you are in the one of the least knowlagble news consumers around.
The study you cited doesn't say anything about The Daily Show specifically. Instead, it's a nebulous category called "comedy shows," which is a bunch of different sources, like Saturday Night Live, grouped together.
On the other hand, the PEW studies did poll for TDS/Colbert Report specifically.
No matter how you slice it, people who watch Fox News are not just uninformed, but misinformed. They consistently poll as the most woefully clueless people in the country. Doesn't matter what sliding scale one uses.
>>2692609
The Donald was once sued by a woman who said The Donald raped her on Epstein's island when she was 13, and a friend of hers who was there corroborates her story. They said The Donald and Epstein lured them onto the island and raped them.
>>2692701
First of all 5 out of the 9 questions involve prominent people (at the time) - Nancy Pelosi, Scooter Libby, Robert Gates, Vladimir Putin and Dick Cheney. Don't tell me Daily Show hasn't made jokes about at least 4 of them cos I've seen those and I rarely watched it. Also on 4 of the 5 prominent people questions the average score was below 50% making those who knew all 5 prominent people a shoe-in for the "high knowledge group" even if they didn't know what those people stood for etc.
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/16/11946/daily-show-fox-knowledge/
Your own study you cite says fox news (35) polls on a similar level (within the margin of error) as CNN(41), local TV news(35) AND Network evening news(38). The only specific program from Fox they cite is the O'Reilly factor (51).
When fox news scores within 3 points of network evening news ( with a 3 point margin of error) how are Fox viewers "not just uninformed, but misinformed" & "most woefully clueless people in the country"?
Fox also does sofa daytime "soft news" shows that are "news light" ( just like msnbc etc) and they also do proper news. The Fox score doesn't filter out crap like this but Fox still score similar to dedicated Network evening news coverage. Seeing as the only Fox news show that is being filtered for a deliberate strong news focus is the O'Reilly factor(51) and it scores well I would say you are short on justifying "not just uninformed, but misinformed" & "most woefully clueless people in the country".
Have you actually watched Fox nightly news or are you just relying on the Daily SHow to tell you it's bad?
Also again your study.
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/319-7.gif
How come Dems and Reps score the same if the Reps are being misinformed by Fox news?
ALso from your study
>The fact that a particular news source's audience is very knowledgeable does not mean that people learned all that they know from that source.
Which was one of my points.
>>2692878
When you lose the argument, argue the validity of the poll.
>blah blah Fox
Fox News is a joke son.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o
>How come Dems and Reps score the same if the Reps are being misinformed by Fox news?
They don't score the same, numb nuts.
This is why everyone in the free world thinks right-wingers are stupid.
>hibi-jabis!
why are trump supporters total degenerates?
>>2692992
>When you lose the argument,
implying you've won the agrument without addressing points
>argue the validity of the poll
exactly what you did in a previous post
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–08
>They (reps and dems) don't score the same
Your cited study
>http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/319-7.gif
Republicans
High knowledge group = 36
Medium knowledge group = 38
Low knowledge group = 26
Democrats
High knowledge group = 37
Medium knowledge group = 32
Low knowledge group = 31
>can't read simple numbers
>Thinks Daily show is a good source of news
>Calls other people stupid unironically
alrighty then. Good luck with that way of thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OxO5bnU_4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwKHEpolG6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDFnrNtqAjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72zJvVQWutA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UPnffQPw8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM
>>2693554
You previously obliterated your own argument. You just don't know it, and yes, you had your ass served to you, which you don't seem to comprehend.
>Fox News viewers is smart, Daily Show viewers is dummies
'Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”'
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/pewtv.GIF
>no charges
it. JUST. keeps. happening.
>>2687299
>trump is the biggest thing since sliced bread
>not being a realist
kill YOURself
>>2676171
>free the nipple
is there anybody who opposes this?
>>2694908
old people
>>2696270
and young people who have to be around old people
>>2694908
Yeah free the blue waffle, too. Not everyone is a super model underneath their clothes. You're really smart
