Rand paul drops Bombshell against the clintons

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think what is being alleged is that the Clintons were using the foundation as a loophole to have access tot he money that was sent from foreign countries.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think what is being alleged is that the Clintons were using the foundation as a loophole to have access tot he money that was sent from foreign countries.

That is quite a claim to make, i.e. that the Clintons are absconding with money donated to their foundation/NGO. It is possible, just like it could be for any organization. But it's quite a claim. Is there proof of that?

This is what I meant that if it's not true, then it will ultimately harm Rand Paul. If it's true, with real evidence, then of course more power to Paul.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: DelMarvel

what kind of different democratic candidate? have you heard of Martin O Malley?

Yes, the former governor of Maryland? Don't know much about him.

My first concern with Hillary is that she is as hawkish as the Republicans.

I have fantasies of Jim Webb or Elizabeth Warren but that ain't gonna happen.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Anyone who votes for either, is so blind to what they are doing to the country I am shocked to my core.

imo...the democratic republic voting process was co-opted by the corporate oligarchy long ago. Voting is meaningless but the electoral process is still entertaining to watch all the folks that still think in the 1950s "true believers" mindset.

Presidents and congressmen are now selected, not elected. When big money is involved the electorate are kicked to the curb in preference to our corporate masters.

It's a brave new world....

Bush in 16

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

that's why I found it so shocking that he would make reference to that. The day after he announces. Either he knows for a matter of fact that it is true. Or he has made one of the worst blunders ever.

There is even good court evidence linking Bill to a pedophile sex slave island, and Hillary knows now if she didn't then that he was going there. What kind of role model is that for women?

Come again.... what pedophile sex slave island is that?
- Are there any other activities on this island?
- Can book a flight on expedia or orbits.com?
- Which other heads of state might I see?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: asmall89
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Clinton wasn't better than any others. The reason why the economy was in good shape was because of the Tech bubble, which also happened to burst in his last year. This was all due to wreckless monetary policy set forth by the fed.

My parents lost half their assets value after the bubble burst.

Did Clinton invade two countries fully? Bomb yes, but invade no. The War on Terror and foreign engagements were much more under both Bush I and Bush II.

In my view, the democrats are still much better on foreign policy and domestic policy, excepting their mutual support with the Republicans for domestic surveillance. The Republicans are more extreme on all of those topics, excepting the surveillance (equal). I do think though that the Democratic elite, just like the Republican elite, are sold out. So perhaps much of it is a parade.

No but Clinton did bomb Iraq throughout his presidency, among other nations. I do not support Bushes,Obama, nor Clintons. They have all done their share of destroying the world and this country. People shouldn't let hindsight blind them when it comes to Clinton...he was just as bad.

Why is it, that every time a political figure is discussed on this site, it becomes a "well so and so did this" and "this other guy did that"??

Why can't we judge a person based on their own merits and transgressions without comparing them to the opposition like it somehow justifies the actions of a particular politician?

"Yeah you say that about Clinton but what about this stuff that Bush and Cheney did!?" It's irrelevant. The past and all other politicians are irrelevant to the actions of an individual. It's really not that difficult to understand.

a reply to: Answer

I don't know if I grasp the full understanding of your statement people are judged and looked at by their past actions or "transgressions". Yes we look at character and all that as a part of what makes you who you are but also your past plays a part in that as well.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Answer

I don't know if I grasp the full understanding of your statement people are judged and looked at by their past actions or "transgressions". Yes we look at character and all that as a part of what makes you who you are but also your past plays a part in that as well.

Not the individual's past, the past actions of others.

My point is that people always try to deflect attention away from their favored politician by pointing out the actions of another.

A criticism is made against Obama or Clinton and the other side deflects it by saying "yeah, well Bush did xxxx." A person is not judged based on if their shyte smells just a little better than another's.

a reply to: Answer

Okay I get that I agree with that. I was pointing this out because mostly I thought that this was a bold move for rand to make and say this. Clinton has enough skeletons already one more is probably not going to hurt that much.

What's more was I was looking for the full interview on CNN's website and could not find the part where Rand actually mention it and could not find it.

originally posted by: Answer
Why is it, that every time a political figure is discussed on this site, it becomes a "well so and so did this" and "this other guy did that"??

Why can't we judge a person based on their own merits and transgressions without comparing them to the opposition like it somehow justifies the actions of a particular politician?

"Yeah you say that about Clinton but what about this stuff that Bush and Cheney did!?" It's irrelevant. The past and all other politicians are irrelevant to the actions of an individual. It's really not that difficult to understand.

That's the conundrum that is destroying this country!

"Well so and so did it?"

Meanwhile the political "class" gets away with violating the law on a daily basis while the police state and judicial system grinds on putting us serfs in prison and fining us to the point we can't survive!

I find it quite disturbing that those who support a certain political party can defend their violations of the law, while blindly watching their fellow citizens be made into criminals over "statutory" laws!

Welcome to the new Roman Empire!

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Answer

Okay I get that I agree with that. I was pointing this out because mostly I thought that this was a bold move for rand to make and say this. Clinton has enough skeletons already one more is probably not going to hurt that much.

What's more was I was looking for the full interview on CNN's website and could not find the part where Rand actually mention it and could not find it.

I wasn't addressing your OP... more the responses that came after and the behavior of many posters in other political threads.

Obviously if information pertains to a presidential candidate, it is relevant. What's not relevant is comparing Hillary Clinton's actions to G.W.Bush in an attempt to excuse her behavior.

originally posted by: Answer


Why can't we judge a person based on their own merits and transgressions without comparing them to the opposition like it somehow justifies the actions of a particular politician?

Because imo Politics and elections have become a big national reality styled show with fans, supporters, dialectic, scripts, production values, photo ops, stars, villains, producers and directors, supporting cast, critics and reviewers. It's a high tech "bread and circus" show for the masses to keep them thinking that they actually have input into the process.

I say this as a low level media person that once worked for the Libertarians and that's the impression I got. That being said Gary Johnson was a stand up guy, I voted for him and would do so again despite my cynicism.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I think what is being alleged is that the Clintons were using the foundation as a loophole to have access tot he money that was sent from foreign countries.

So Rand comes out fighting.... as he should
Will this win him currency.... maybe, a little
but I doubt it will carry him to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

I'm just glad he is in the race, it means
other issues will be addressed nationally
(as was the case when the senior Paul
ran for office three time prior).

That is the only real value I see, but
that is good thing...a very good thing.
We need a voice for the common man
even his is too ambitious for my taste.

Clinton had a fire sale when he was in office. Our whole nuclear and missile technology got , nudge nudge wink wink, stolen by China when good ole free Willy was in office. Lots of Chinese money ended up in their political war chests too.

Good for Rand Paul for reminding the brain dead masses of their shady ways.

After reading the first two pages I had to double check to see if this was in the Mud Pit. I was surprised.


I am wondering if Rand is in cahoots to sell books with this. It just doesn't sit right with me to make an accusation like that and refer to a book that is coming out. Is the author impeccable did he say which author it was?

This is the kind of mannerism I don't want to see in a presidential candidate. Most of the time, people remember the accusation but not if it turned out to be true.

For the record, I don't like any of the potentials, but I am watching and listening to them. They are all turds as far as I am concerned and given time they will rule themselves out of the race with their own words until we have a remaining turd that stinks the least.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

At least you are honest about supporting a murdering pedophile. Most people would be afraid to own up to that.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: seeker1963

Well, my point was that Bill has been an excellent president compared to what we have had in a freaking looooong time!!

I understand you don't have much good to say about Bush(s) or Obama, but geesh...Bill was a saint compared to these other crooks..That was my point!

It seems that your point is simply and completely "I Like Bill CLinton". Good for you; everyone else's opinion is just as valid as yours. Why do you care so much about someone that most probably did not do anything for you or anyone you know?

My opinion is both parties are corrupt and guilty and the system in place perpetuates this. It doesn't matter if a Democrat or a Republican get into office; the results will be the same on a macro level….

Wake up and stop bickering over nonsense of who is worse, they are all bad.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

have you refered to the book Rand Paul was Referencing?

It matters not.

I also work in global development.

Who is your boss that owns the whole globe to be developed? This is the globe calling, we need some development.

Curious job title, kind of like community organizer....huh? Can communities look in the yellow pages for one?