Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
My impression is that he was politely trying to convince them that "this is the way."
The First 100 days
- Thread starter theiioftx
- Start date
My impression is that he was politely trying to convince them that "this is the way."
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
My sense of the explanation for their opposition is that they are heavily invested in the idea of "one world," that all humans are the same. This is something they been working on since the fall of the USSR. They eventually want to eliminate all borders, which means one global govt at some point in the future (which will somehow end up being run completely by europeans, of course). And so things like economic nationalism/patriotism are antithetical to that plan, at least on the surface. Frankly, I think it's not just that they automatically knee jerk in opposition because of their beliefs, but they actually fear economic nationalism. It unsettles them. They have become very cozy with globalism, and have been seeing it as fait accompli. Then Trump came along and shook their tree. So they fought it at first. But now, after 3 years of watching the US economy outpace theirs, they are warming up to Trump's economic policies.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
"They" could begin and end w/ Seattle Husker as far as I'm concerned. His last appearance here included an insulting diatribe to a poster here (mc, garmel, I35, don't remember). His demeaning comments were proven false, outright. I commented on it. Seattle was no doubt embarrassed by his tone as well as inaccuracy. Haven't seen a post from him since
Bubba - hard headed but I enjoy reading his stuff. Longest-, can be R to X rated in comments, but take him fwiw
I'm with you on listening to differing opinions. In the car I listen to npr. Makes my ears bleed at times, but it always pays to get every side of the argument.
SH likes to post on the crypto thread.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
You seem to suggest that I walked away due to some irrefutable point you had made. That isn't at all what happened. The discussion carried on for pages and pages. You kept throwing out allegation after allegation, and I countered them all with cold hard facts. I just re-read the thread, and my biased opinion is that I won the debate by a wide margin. I'm sure you disagree, but don't flatter yourself by thinking I gave up and walked away.
My decision to drastically reduce how often I post on the West Mall happened years later, for irrelevant reasons. This thread reaffirms that I made the right decision.
I can't find any evidence that you and I ever discussed this issue on Hornfans. I thought for sure I must've mentioned the words "birther" and "Blumenthal" at some point over the years, but the search feature says I haven't. In any event, the main thread where you have posted on the topic appears to be this one. I posted on that thread, but on irrelevant topics.
For what it's worth, I don't know whether you are right that the Hillary Clinton campaign "started" the birther attacks, but I do agree with you that they raised the issue long before President Trump's campaign did. Both Clinton and Trump deserve condemnation for doing so. That said, I'd be interested to know whether Clinton joined Trump in continuing to pound the issue even after it was proven to be false.
Not a fair comparison since Hillary accepted SoS under Obama to help set up her 2016 campaign.
Gawd! What an *******!!!
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
This is silliness. I am somewhat surprised to find someone still willing to defend the Clintons and their "Foundation." Someone who still wants to litigate how they used it. I honestly thought that ship had sailed.
Everyone knows the Clinton's travel a lot. You know how they roll. They go large. So ask yourself --
How do they travel? Do they book their trips on a money saving site? Or do they go first class?
How do they fly? Do they travel commercial? Or do they fly on private jets?
Where do they stay? Are they in hostels, maybe AirBNB? Or are they in 5-star hotels and rented villas?
Where do they eat? Are they eating from food carts on the street corner? Or, are the eating at Michelin-starred restaurants? (well, maybe bill still scrounges up some fastfood, but the Clintons females certainly are not bellying-up to a McDonald's counter)
Do they travel alone, or do they have a posse? Who provides said posse's travel and accomodations?
Does Hillary take personal medical care with her wherever she goes? Seems like she has to.
Do they hire private security wherever they go? Or do they just completely rely on their limited, taxpayer-funded SS protection?
Do they shop while on travel? Buy gifts for anyone? What do you suppose that operation looks like?
How much does all this cost? Rolling this way with such a giant footprint is expensive. Sure they get help with some of the travel via friends (like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, lol) but the Clintons dont really have as many friends as they used to. Do they?
It adds up. Who pays for it all? Just think of their monthly cash outflows. It's probably staggering. It might not be as high as it used to be, but even so, they probably spend more on travel (in total) in a week than most Americans do in a year. That money comes from somewhere. Yet both are unemployed? How is it even possible?
I suggest to you that the explanation is very simple. It just involves a little common sense. The Clinton Foundation was a money-laundering scheme set up to fund this lavish lifestyle. I believe it was pardoned fugitive and expert financial schemer Marc Rich who told them how to set it up to avoid scrutiny. Hillary traded access and US Govt positions on certain issues for cash "donations." As well as the promise of more, once she became president. There are hundreds of examples. And just look at what happened to those donations to the CF once it became clear she would not be president. They fell off a cliff. Everyone knows this. Everyone except you apparently.
(I think your sarcasm detector is on the fritz...)
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I don't have time for a full response, and I don't plan to come back. But I will respond briefly.
I fully agree that the drop-off in donations was entirely predictable. The donation-side of the foundation was always premised on the idea that donations led to connections. When Hillary could no longer offer connections, donations dried up. Shocking.
On the spending side, most of the money went to legitimate operations. There was quite a bit of travel involved, but this is not unsual or inappropriate for an international foundation. I haven't looked at the numbers in a while, but my recollection was that most of the travel expenses involved sending experts and low-level employees/volunteers into the field. Relatively little of the travel money was spent on the Clintons themselves.
Was some of the money spent on the Clintons? Sure. Did they fly first class (or private jet) instead of budget coach? Sure. Did they stay at posh hotels and eat at fancy restaurants instead of relying on motels and fast food joints? Sure and sure.
But is it fair to hold the Clintons to such a standard when other major charities don't operate that way? You'll never admit it, but of course not. I suppose my crime is trusting what every charity-rating service on the planet says rather than the ravings of a certain prolific HornFans poster. I plead guilty as charged.
I should add -- are the Clintons unstained angels who should be emulated and admired? Of course not. They are ruthless politicians who use shady tactics to get ahead -- just like all successful politicians. But that doesn't make them criminals, and it doesn't make their foundation a fraud.
So, anything out of top 25 is essentially zero?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
There are more than a few conclusions you could draw from this
I was locating the floor
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I didnt think there was anyone left willing to defend this stuff.
Anyway, what she did while SOS was criminal. It's not relevant what other "charities" were doing.
18 USC 201
Last edited:
The media isn't silent about it here. The sad thing is that they're pissed about something good that Macron is trying to do (pension reform).
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
We dont see any of it. Or I havent noticed it at least. Maybe on the BBC channel?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
That's good video. But appears to be online only?
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
In 2014, expenses exceeded 51% of donations. About 3% of donations were granted to legitimate charities. The foundation claims that most money is used for charitable purposes.........Yeah, right.
How much does the Clinton Foundation really donate to charity?
I partially agree that most successful politicians are corrupt and will never be prosecuted. I still consider their behavior as criminal. Any charity that uses more than 50% of donations as "expenses" is a fraud.
Still one of the most chilling things I have ever heard a politician say.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
On top of everything else, Trump tricked the MSM into covering the March for Life, something they dont normally do
I was working in DC for some of those, they were huge, yet never generated much media coverage. Go figure
Last edited:
The disproportionate coverage is really remarkable. And of course, a conservative demonstration should get far more coverage because of the relative difficulty of getting conservatives to DC for a rally.
For example, I think the "women's march" got about 10,000 people. Well, you can find 10,000 pissed off liberal women in a few blocks of DC. That's a ****** turnout. Frankly, they should be laughed at and humiliated with a turnout that low. If conservatives rally in DC, they're coming from all over the United States. If you get 100,000 for a March for Life, that's the equivalent of getting about 800,000 liberals to rally in DC.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
