I knew this would happen. The articles I was sent had names, examples, etc, but as there were so many, I binned them after I read them, otherwise I would be able to back up my comments with details.bwfc1874 wrote:@gloswhite wrote:As you will be aware, the candidates are only allowed a certain amount of funds to campaign, (which usually gets worked around). However, it is 'rumoured' that Clintons campaign is drawing funds from the Clinton Foundation, which allows her to pull in all sorts of backing, including the majority of the media organisations.
Although the Clinton foundation is certainly shady, have you looked into Trump's namesake charity at all? He too is under investigation, for essentially using the charity as a tax evasion device, and spending donations rather than giving them to charity (one of which included the sale of a $20,000 portrait of Donald himself).@gloswhite wrote:sOne argument levelled against the foundation is that both her and Bill, over the years, have done 'favours' for certain people, criminals included, who then make donations to the foundation. This includes presidential pardons for people who are convicted criminals/drug dealers. As a matter of interest, their personal fortune, (can't remember exactly), went from aproximately 12m dollars to something like 45m dollars (all figures approximate), during his presidency, and her Senatorship. My understanding is that the Clinton Foundation is now under investigation.
This is where I start to think your Republican friends might have been misled, there's no evidence to suggest criminals and drug dealers have received presidential pardons off the back of donations, this is classic Republican conspiracy theory. Obama has started to undo the damaging effects of Reagan's war on drugs by offering presidential pardons to detainees who have spent most of their lives in prison for relatively minor drug offences. Republicans hate this - firstly it's Obama doing it, secondly it's undoing Reagan's work and thirdly it involves the word drugs. The policy is a necessity though, prisons are over crowded in the US as they are here and the so called 'war on drugs' has been a monumental failure, attitudes are changing towards how we approach drug crime in the West, long may that continue.@gloswhite wrote:Poplicies include doing away with all fossil fuels, as well as fracking, which may sound good, but it immediately ruins the lives of many people. Rumour has it that she is building up her interests in alternative power systems.
These just don't sound good, these are good. America has finally started to come into line with the rest of the world (apart from Russia) in trying to reduce it's carbon emissions and doing something about climate change. 40% of American's still don't believe climate change is genuine, Fox News and the Repbulican party can take a big slice of the blame for that. Something has to be done before it's too late and radical policies to cut fossil fuels is essential, any rational person has to look at the scientific evidence and agree.
I'm not a fan of hers as I've said, but she's done three things well throughout her career, and that's championing gender equality from a position of power, push climate change reform and promote state healthcare. Three very important causes that 40 years ago when she began will largely have been laughed at, the way society is going now though she's clearly come out on the right side of history.
There are questions over Clinton yes. But Trump has had even more questions over him all of which have been emphatically answered, he's guilty as charged, and what's even worse that a man running for President could have got this far barely even mentioning policy.
I don't agree with your comments per se, although obviously I can't ignore some of the points you make, as you did with my Benghazi comments.
The bottom line for me is that she has a proven poor record whilst in the employ of her country, showing poor decision making, and supported by a very large dose of dishonesty. An example being that she wants a no-fly zone over Aleppo, presumably policed by American planes. Everyone else says its too dangerous, as it will put American fighters in direct conflict with the Russians, and she's still saying it. She is more likely to start major conflicts than Trump, especially with such naive thinking.
Trump has pushed and bullied his way to where he is, and has some bad character flaws, but one thing he hasn't done is hide behind others when wasting resources, and making errors. Call it arrogance or stupidity, but he stands up to be counted.
Having said that, lets be honest, either choice is a liability.