HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

delrem

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
Number of posts: 9,688

Journal Archives

Is it a real charity or is it a private foundation,

100% controlled by the private interests of one political family?

OK, I'll grant that it's defined legally within some very lenient, not quite to say totally unregulated, bounds.

But Clinton =/= Gates, or even the sleazy Zukkerberg. Clinton private income all derives from politics, a massive amount from speeches given with exorbitant prices, to the tune of $160 million plus since Bill Clinton was president and Hillary was advertised as having it in the bag to be next, so there isn't the same intrinsic base for the Clinton Foundation as the Gates Foundation. People should think about this, about what is happening here.

For example, what Clinton Foundation monies are spent for what? How are contracts awarded? Who profits from the contracts? Are they no-bid? And so on. I'm sure that all the charitable spending is on worthy causes, but I question how it is done. I also question whether this is the best way for a politician to be pro-active about bettering the world, rather than putting her ass on the line and declaring that Single Payer Universal Health Care is the goal, regardless of the loss of potential profits for capital investment in the health care insurance business.

It's something to think about, at least.

But also, who is donating, and when? For example The House of Saud is a big donor, but nobody in a rational universe thinks that The House of Saud is at all "progressive" in any sense, not even some of the crazy senses that the term is endowed with in some of the more outlier of DU posts. So, when did the Saudi despots donate? Were they doing arms deals with the US gov't in that window of time, and were those deals assisted by a Clinton, acting as a politician? Are wars fought for profit being eased into existence by war profiteers, who donate to the Clinton Foundation charitable fund?

what if, like, jeebus embraced the dowel? What then?

BUt tHunk.
jeebus would have to stop its goonish BrondoPAC from swiftboating the progressive/liberal-left base, and that won't happen because it's jeebus's trademark. It's what made $jeebus$ into $$jeebus$.

So we've got a ratfucked swiftboated progressive/liberal-left base, listening while these goons talk incessantly about how "Berniebros" are racist misogynists led by a tone deaf faker who pretends to be Rappaport. And that's just to start the day.

So it won't happen, not even given however number of "loyalty oath" posts which always follow after the swiftboat takes another turn down the rapids. As a reader/contributer to DU who, being a "progressive white guy", has been thoroughly swiftboated, I didn't take too kindly to the political experience. In my opinion, swiftboating should be left with the Republicans, since it defines Republican thought.

So I'd say NO. I don't think another loyalty oath thread will do the trick.

It's one of many issues that seem to be "non-partisan no-brainers",

but it seems aren't.

For the love of jeezbudakrishna and all the saints, why are Dems using black box voting machines, still.

Allowing them to be used in the coming GE.

Why haven't you got democracy even that far together, that you would use a black box machine and exit happily, not knowing what the fuck just happened?

"destabilization of both Libya and Syria..."

destabilization, after Afghanistan, Iraq, and what do we have now???

Holy shit. Time to bring in the inventors. Someone who can invent a likely story. Make it safe to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Really, I don't give a shit who you're "voting for".

If you're talking about actual issues of importance who you claim to be voting for should have no bearing on your argument. When you preface your posts with that information as prelude to typing out something that's counter-intuitive it doesn't make your case easier to understand.

Like for example that you're a "Sanders supporter" but you think running against the DLC/Third-Way/New_Democrat Hillary Clinton associated legacy is "lunacy".

I mean, like, yah right....

That's very solid. Congratulations must be given to Hillary for this.

I don't understand it, though.
I don't understand why.

I won't listen to some diatribe about the awfulness of "white progressives" as an explanation.
I won't listen to some diatribe about how "white progressives" are racist.

It is what it is.

I don't think Hillary Rodham Clinton can win without "white progressives" and "the liberal left".
I don't.

How do you win after putting "economic justice" against "social justice" as your center piece, then calling those who promote economic justice ... racists? BernieBros? White supremacists? And also misogynist sexists?

I mean, wtf?

So how does Hillary Rodham Clinton intend to walk this back? How can she pull back the ratfucking swiftboating Brock and substitute something unifying, to make everyone forget?

Tell me.

Some people care about the victims of war profiteering con artists.

Others don't.

It has nothing to do with "hate".
It's a difference between having a moral sense and not having one.

Some people want wars of choice to stop, because wars of choice are always for private profit. Some people want to see an end to war profiteering, or at the very least some minimal regulation put on it.

Who would imagine that?

Some people want to see all the countries of the world put people first, ensuring universal healthcare, regardless of the lost profit of private insurance companies who've learned how to use pain and death as a lever to extract dividends, and who're now told they can't do it anymore.

Some people just want a fair minimum wage for plain ordinary daily toil.
Imagine that.

I want to see the test!

Because you know, I'll bet the contents of her speeches were boring as boring as boring as you know.
And for sure, I wouldn't read through them. No way. I don't care what they said.

Maybe the real problem is the payola. The cash in hand.
I mean shit. She and Bill brought home something like $200,000,000 in the past 15 yrs, doing "speeches".

Back when I was a kid I'd say "Holy Cow!"
That must mean something.

The problem is that the private server mixed personal and government matters.

Then, because it was a private server, it was "wiped" of the "personal" stuff, and only a carefully redacted version was shown to the people. But there is no real way of knowing what was "wiped" and what was not. Because that's Hillary's own secret.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »