Two instances, neither of which shows knowing complicity on Clinton’s part, is a “pattern”?
yawn
For my part, I’m much, much more leery of the massive funding HRC has been getting from corporate interests.
Yeah, I’m sure that’d be your reaction if the exact same thing happened over at the Thompson camp, or the Bush camps during 2000 or 2004.
I’d be leery of any politician who wasn’t getting big donations from corporate interests. It’d show that the people who make this country work didn’t support a given politician which would make me think they were probably not fit to lead.
You do understand, don’t you, that what is good for General Motors is not always and in all circumstances good for the country?
So basically what we have is that Hillary has accepted money from convicted felons, and Obama has made a real estate deal with, accepted $168K in funds from, and generally went above and beyond to support his “friend” who just happens to be under indictment?
Doesn’t that show a rather serious lack of judgement on their parts?
The actual application of the flip flopper charge is often spurious though, in that the charge usually comes from blowing a vote on an omnibus bill out of proportion.
“the people who make this country work”?
Oyyyy.
…
No, wait, I’m not done.
Who makes this country work? Public servants, like police officers. Regular Joes that show virtues like honesty, compassion, & integrity.
There is a disgustingly literal-minded way corporations can be called “the people who [implicitly exclusively] make this country work”–in the sense described in My Ishmael: by controlling the supply of wealth, they can force others to work longer hours to enrich their masters. Is that what you meant?
Not on Clinton’s part; there’s no reason (yet) to suspect she knew or had reason to know those two particular donors were dirty. Obama, OTOH, apparently knew Reszko was dirty, still took his money and did favors for him, and lied (or at least shaded the truth) about their relationship. (But whaddaya want? By Chicago standards, that makes him a saint! 
)
One can say that such an admission is evidence of character in itself. Our own president can’t do even do this little one thing.
I guess one needs to define character for the debate to go anywhere. Does character mean innocent as the driven snow? Why is that better than doing bad things, atoning for them and going the straight and narrow thereafter? Is character having integrity, high ideals, and honesty? How does someone determine these things in a person who’s never been tested or been under the limelight long enough for dirt to get kicked up? Obama looks innocent now because he hasn’t had the chance to do real wickedness. But drop him in the four ring circus, he might turn out to be just as bad as all his predecessors.
I think the real question is how much does character matter to people. Voters are going to say their man is “nice” no matter what he does, because he’s their man and that’s the way politics work.
As opposed to Bush who used the 9/11 victims.
What do you mean she didn’t have reason to know, in the case of Hsu, that he was dirty? He’s been a criminal fugitive for 15 years!
Which did not become public knowledge until quite recently – he was quite adeptly hiding in plain sight – and a candidate is not obliged to hire a P.I. to do a background check on every donor.
His conviction was secret?
No, it was simply unknown to anyone who had not run a background check. I’ve known people (clients, in some cases) who have had arrest warrants out for them for years, but they never got arrested – they weren’t using assumed names or false identities, it was just that the authorities never looked too hard to find them. And certainly people with whom they had dealings were not automatically aware of the fact. Running a check on somebody is not that difficult, nowadays, but it does take some effort and you can’t do it WRT everybody you know.
But don’t you think that a candidate for President of the United States should know from whom they are taking money?
The higher the office for which you are running, the more donors you need and have, the less practical that becomes. Admittedly, it’s different WRT big donors like Hsu – but even there, background checks are neither necessary nor routine nor expected, nor should they be. If a guy with Hsu’s past wants to make campaign donations, where’s the harm, really? There are a lot of good reasons for wanting to get money out of politics, a lot of ways money corrupts the system, but this is not much of an example. (For better examples, see the second link in post #21.)
You can’t be serious.
Taking $$$ from criminals is not a problem for you? In terms of who should be POTUS? What’s next? Taking money from the Mafia? The Chinese? (oh, wait, Algore tried that one), Terrorists? Good Lord, man, think!
Heavens to Murgatroyd!
What exactly do you assume the criminal is going to get for his money, and is it going to represent more than one-thousandth of one percent of a President’s total influence?
It depends on what, if anything, the donor wants or can reasonably expect in return. Corporate donors want, and get, a great deal. Hsu? Maybe he hoped to get a presidential pardon, eventually, but we have no reason to think so, and certainly no reason to think Clinton promised it or would have given it.
Really, your harping on this point is fast becoming as pathetic and embarrassing and meaningless as this thread.
Ok, you win. Criminals for Clinton! Think she’ll use it?
No, actually, this is precisely where you are wrong. Be honest, if it were Rudy or Romney or “Freddie” :rolleyes: taking $$$ from fugitive criminals, how fast and furious would you be posting in GD? Like I said, be honest now.
edited to correct grammar