Mayor of Poundtown.
Good God. Let me paraphrase the AP.
About 50 percent of the people she meet with “privately” (as opposed to gubment business) “happened” to be donors.
I did not and have not (IMO) implied your second to last sentence.
If I have, well now you now know otherwise.
This entire exchange has been about the fact that you said that explicitly.
IMO. “Words and details matter.”
So… 19 minutes later and the emergency is resolved?
Good job!
No.
Getting ready to epoxy paint a concrete floor if you must know.
I sincerely hope you have as much trouble as I have had with this project.
And I hope when you do and you put the other two coats on it…and someone is bitching about you doing it wrong and taking too long that you too find out you fucked the prep up and that 300 dollar shit peels like a Singapore prostitute.
I, uhm. OK.
Gosh, based on your posts in this thread, I thought you were an expert on cover ups.
Having not yet been worthy of the sublime joys of Singaporean Pleasure Women, I must ask… is “peeling” a good or a bad thing?
So the murder/suicide thing is NOT related to the mayor gig then?
Seems like a golden opportunity to bring caning into this.
Sooo… let’s look at this way, say the Secretary of State has 6000 meetings involving government officials. And then she has 154 meetings aside from government officials. Of those 154 meetings, 84 are people who donated to the Clinton Foundation. Just on the basis of numbers, that’s a paltry amount of meetings.
Secondly, as pointed out, folks that donate to big charities aren’t Joe Shmoe, they tend to be movers and shakers in the field. As the Vox article points out, one of those was the head of an HIV NGO - they donated to the Clinton Foundation to help with HIV issues. They met with Secretary Clinton before she was discussing an HIV initiative. How is such a meeting an improper quid pro quo?
Yeah, but… what about those Singapore whores and their “peeling”? Don’t they get any help from the Clinton Foundation? Why does HRC not care about peeling hookers, or Billfish’s floor?
Sweet! Then we could say, “The burden of proof is now on you to prove this photo isn’t real!” No one would ever bear any responsibility again!
You are reasoning defectively. The number of people who think she’s nebulously “untrustworthy” has nothing whatsoever to do with how untrustworthy she is. An opinion moderately informed people hold after decades of lying, high-profile hatchet-jobs, isn’t necessarily an accurate take on reality. It’s a measure of the success of decades of swift-boating.
That you actually make that assertion, shows you’re not thinking about this issue rationally.
And you add still more nonsense in the second sentence, asserting that erroneously thinking she’s “untrustworthy” must be a sign of mental illness, rather than simply being incorrect.
Your position is incoherent.
Do you actually not understand how the burden of proof works?
Prove to me you’re not a murderer. I’ll wait.
If you’re asserting a quid pro quo, you need to demonstrate it. Not point at a list and gasp.
AP’s ‘Big Story’ on Clinton Foundation is big failure
The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess
I wonder how TriPolar managed to keep missing all these follow-up stories.
You lost the context of what I said. It was a humorous response to a suggestion that Clinton could prove her innocence by photoshopping a check with a memo that says “Not a quid pro quo.” Then she could demand that others “prove this wrong,” batting the burden of proof into the other guys’ court.
It wasn’t a serious suggestion. It’s an observation on the failure of the claims, right now, that it’s “up to Clinton” to prove that she hasn’t engaged in quid pro quo selling of favors. In other words, they’re demanding that “she prove she’s not a murderer: we’ll wait.”
That is exactly the point that DonLogan was making, and with which I was agreeing. It isn’t up to Clinton to prove innocence; it’s up to her attackers to prove guilt.
My bad.
Or,ya know, we could stop the with the ‘But Billy did it too!’ and ‘So what? Your guy did worse things!’ bullshit rationalization of unethical behavior and expect our politicians to behave with just a little bit moral sense.
But that would be asking too much, now wouldn’t it?
Slee
As I’m sure someone has pointed out in the interim between this post and my last one, the numbers are HIGHLY skewed in that report, as is demonstrated in each of the denunciations. The AP’s ‘facts’ are, in fact, twisted completely out of proportion.