Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Papers arent talking about Hillary helping Chelsea's friend?
1  2  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Mevater




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 1:52 am
Documents: Hillary Clinton Helped Friend of Chelsea Gain Government Contracts

http://www.newsmax.com/Politic.....2062/

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton sought to arrange Pentagon and State Department consulting contracts for a friend of her daughter Chelsea, according to documents found in Clinton emails made public by the State Department.

In 2009, she arranged meetings between Jacqueline Newmyer Deal, head of defense consultants Long Term Strategy Group, and Pentagon officials. The former secretary of state also tried to help Deal gain a consulting contract with the State Department's director of policy planning, The Washington Free Beacon reported.

Chelsea Clinton, the vice chair of The Clinton Foundation, has called Deal her best friend. Cronyism, using senior positions to help family or friends, is not illegal, but in this case, it appears federal ethics rules could have been violated, creating apparent conflicts of interest, the Free Beacon reported.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Did this happen or not? Whats the New York Time's take on this?
Back to top

seeker




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 3:48 am
Look, it's possible there was more hanky panky going on than this little clip describes, I didn't look into the story in more detail. But what exactly does "help" mean? "Arranged meetings" sounds normal enough. What, if your friend's parent was well positioned in a company you want to work for, you wouldn't ask them to help you set up a meeting and to put in some good words for you? Sure it could theoretically come back to haunt you but you'd do it, wouldn't you? I can definitely think of bigger things to worry about.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 7:08 am
This worries you? But it doesn't worry you when Trump says he'll appoint his kids to top positions in his administration?
Back to top

seeker




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 9:40 am
We're not limited to one worry at a time, lol

Tell you what doesn't bother me anymore - "What's Aleppo?" Which is the kind of thing that can just happen in these kinds of interviews where you're not given half a second to process the question. And anyway when you're president, there are people whose job it is to tell you all the important things going on in the world because you don't have time to read/watch the news in general media anymore. There won't be anyone in the white house making sure Clinton acts morally or Trump acts responsibly.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 9:58 am
The problems with Trump are so vast and he seems to care so little about them that whatever they dish up on Hillary doesn't bother me that much. Also did you realize that with Trump there's a new story every day but with Hillary they have to keep harping on the same 2-3 stories because they can't find new dirt? Benghazi, emails, Benghazi, emails. Oh and the deplorables comment got at least 2-3 weeks worth of bad press. With Trump it just keeps on coming.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 10:28 am
Of all the reasons I oppose Clinton, this would be the least of them. Yes, the entire Clinton clan is entirely tone-deaf to the appearance of impropriety. And anyone complaining is obviously part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

But defense procurement has become an industry unto itself, one that is remarkably averse to reform. Of all the contractors who've managed to stick their snouts in the trough, I doubt that Chelsea Clintons friends are any worse than most or employed any more corruption than average.

I am far more disturbed by Chelsea Clinton's tenure on the board of IAF and the fact that its media properities such as The Daily Beast run election coverage without providing full disclosure at all times.

JoyInTheMorning wrote:
This worries you? But it doesn't worry you when Trump says he'll appoint his kids to top positions in his administration?


Maybe Clinton is right. Maybe there is a vast right-wing conspiracy, and Trump's campaign is conducting a secret online campaign to turn people who don't much care for him and/or think he's unqualified to be President into committed-if-reluctant Trump supporters.

Because this is precisely the type of analysis that made me more amenable to Trump's candidacy.

The assertion isn't sourced, so I tried looking it up. Here's what I found:

Angelia Savage, representing First Coast News, asked a sexist question about "which women" Trump would appoint to his cabinet if elected. Savage is a former Miss Florida USA and once ran the spa at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort -- probably smart and savvy, but not a journalistic heavy-hitter.

Of course, that really wouldn't matter. When is the last time anyone called out a female journalist for categorizing and stereotyping women inappropriately?

How is a candidate to respond? Listing a handful of accomplished women would be -- or should be -- an utterly disgusting response. Women who are appointed to the Cabinet level should be there on their own merits, not to fill some imaginary quota or somehow represent their gender.

So Trump gave Savage the kind of flippant answer her offensive question deserved and said that there are tons of women who would be qualified -- why not Ivanka?

Does he literally intend to appoint Ivanka to the Cabinet? I very much doubt it. Did he thoroughly think through his answer and consciously give a trolling response? I also doubt that. I think he's an instinctual troll rather than an intellectual one.

But like so many times when Trump has said seemingly outrageous things, the real problem is that he can't remember that much of the media is literal-minded, humorless, and can't recognize its own soft bigotry.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 10:37 am
Quote:
Does he literally intend to appoint Ivanka to the Cabinet? I very much doubt it. Did he thoroughly think through his answer and consciously give a trolling response? I also doubt that. I think he's an instinctual troll rather than an intellectual one.

But like so many times when Trump has said seemingly outrageous things, the real problem is that he can't remember that much of the media is literal-minded, humorless, and can't recognize its own soft bigotry.


The old "he's only joking" excuse, which seems to be the go-to response to every latest ridiculous Trumpism. Together with the implied jab at all those who expect presidential candidates to control their own mouths and take their own words seriously. It seems to be a minimal qualification for a president, no?

Sorry, until he can show that he takes the office of the presidency seriously I'm afraid I can't take his candidacy seriously.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 10:47 am
Jeanette wrote:
The old "he's only joking" excuse, which seems to be the go-to response to every latest ridiculous Trumpism. Together with the implied jab at all those who expect presidential candidates to control their own mouths and take their own words seriously. It seems to be a minimal qualification for a president, no?

Sorry, until he can show that he takes the office of the presidency seriously I'm afraid I can't take his candidacy seriously.


He's not "joking" -- he's giving a trolling response to an offensive question that shouldn't have been asked.

What kind of response would you prefer? Something like, "I'm sorry, I don't permit that kind of sexist denigration of women in interviews I give. Please turn over your press credentials."
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 11:07 am
Fox wrote:
He's not "joking" -- he's giving a trolling response to an offensive question that shouldn't have been asked.

What kind of response would you prefer? Something like, "I'm sorry, I don't permit that kind of sexist denigration of women in interviews I give. Please turn over your press credentials."


How about a straightforward answer? "We will be considering the most qualified and experienced candidates. Their gender is irrelevant." That would effectively end the discussion while showing that he's capable of a sensible and coherent response.

Of course his lackeys lap it up and find it endearing. The rest of us, not so much. But we already know that trump prefers to play to his base.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 12:15 pm
Jeanette wrote:
How about a straightforward answer? "We will be considering the most qualified and experienced candidates. Their gender is irrelevant." That would effectively end the discussion while showing that he's capable of a sensible and coherent response.


Well, that's obviously a better answer. But Trump is not a professional politician, and he isn't experienced at handling the kind of media attention that comes with a presidential campaign.

Moreover, particularly prior to the convention, he simply didn't get that many people don't understand and/or appreciate flippancy as a way of refusing to be trapped in a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

Does that deficit make him unqualified? In minds of many people, yes. In the minds of many of other people, not so much. With trust in journalists at an all-time low, many people feel that anything that disrupts the power of the media is fair game.

Reasonable people can disagree about this, or at least they should be able to.

Jeanette wrote:
Of course his lackeys lap it up and find it endearing. The rest of us, not so much. But we already know that trump prefers to play to his base.


Again, this is precisely the kind of argument that will ensure Trump's election. It's really a version of the "basket of deplorables" comment.

You may detest Trump personally. You may think he's unqualified for the office of President. Heck, a lot of his supporters are none too crazy about him.

But people rebel when labels are attached to them, and they often rebel against the very people who are doing the labeling. And this is why the "basket of deplorables" comment is more politically important than Trump's various insults.

Right now, both candidates desperately need to sway undecided voters. However offensive it is when Trump calls Rosie O'Donnell names, it's about Rosie O'Donnell, not some voter we'll call "Mindy," who is currently undecided. But when Clinton says that half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, etc., Mindy thinks, "Wow! I was thinking of voting for Trump, and my friend, Elaine, said she's voting for Trump. But I don't think I'm more racist, etc., than average, and I don't think Elaine is. How dare Clinton say that about me and Elaine?!"

Thus, Trump wins another tepid vote. Mindy isn't going to don a MAGA hat; she's not a "lackey" in any sense. The only "base" she's a part of is the one that Clinton created.

I don't know who will win, but if Trump is elected, it will be primarily because Clinton and her supporters have talked their way into defeat.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 12:18 pm
seeker wrote:
We're not limited to one worry at a time, lol

Tell you what doesn't bother me anymore - "What's Aleppo?" Which is the kind of thing that can just happen in these kinds of interviews where you're not given half a second to process the question. And anyway when you're president, there are people whose job it is to tell you all the important things going on in the world because you don't have time to read/watch the news in general media anymore. There won't be anyone in the white house making sure Clinton acts morally or Trump acts responsibly.


How about not being able to name one foreign leader that you admire? That doesn't bother you?
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 12:24 pm
Quote:
But like so many times when Trump has said seemingly outrageous things, the real problem is that he can't remember that much of the media is literal-minded, humorless, and can't recognize its own soft bigotry


I know. Trump is super funny. I especially love this clip from a day or two ago. I don't know who wouldn't love this- only humorless literal minded nerds, prob. And maybe people who have dying relatives. But that's about it.

And if there's one thing I want the leader of the free world to have, it's a well-honed sense of humor.

Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 12:32 pm
Trump has an easy path to victory. All he has to do is keep his mouth shut for more than 2 days at a time. Whenever he does that his poll numbers have gone up. Yet he's proven himself incapable of sustaining that. If trump loses he has only himself to blame. Will you ever hold your candidate accountable for anything?
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 12:35 pm
Quote:
But when Clinton says that half of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, etc., Mindy thinks, "Wow! I was thinking of voting for Trump, and my friend, Elaine, said she's voting for Trump. But I don't think I'm more racist, etc., than average, and I don't think Elaine is. How dare Clinton say that about me and Elaine?!"


Here's where Mindy should say: "Yes, I guess I'm in the other half. Yes, there are certainly many Trump supporters that are racist and anti-semitic and just plain vile. But Elaine and I- we have really legitimate reasons we support Trump and I'm glad Hillary realizes that all Trump supporters aren't cut from the same cloth."

If anything, Hillary underestimated the deplorables. And aren't we all just so thrilled when a candidate speaks his or her mind? Isn't it wonderful to free ourselves from the shackles of political correction? To say it like it is? To not worry about people's feelings?

And yes, it's not convincing to focus on this one comment Hillary made (and apologized for), while ignoring Trump's insults... to the entire world. http://www.nytimes.com/interac.....?_r=0
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 1:16 pm
marina wrote:
Quote:
But like so many times when Trump has said seemingly outrageous things, the real problem is that he can't remember that much of the media is literal-minded, humorless, and can't recognize its own soft bigotry


I know. Trump is super funny. I especially love this clip from a day or two ago. I don't know who wouldn't love this- only humorless literal minded nerds, prob. And maybe people who have dying relatives. But that's about it.

And if there's one thing I want the leader of the free world to have, it's a well-honed sense of humor.


I didn't find this offensive in the least; it's the humor of hyperbole to make a point about the importance of voting. Sorry, but the people who are offended are either looking for offense or, yes, are literal-minded. Though I think it's insulting to nerds to associate the two.

This is like a sophomore high school humanities class: every year Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is assigned, and every year a couple of clueless kids come back the next day in high dudgeon because they took it literally.

Understanding that not everything can and should be taken literally doesn't make you a bad or insensitive person.

marina wrote:
If anything, Hillary underestimated the deplorables. And aren't we all just so thrilled when a candidate speaks his or her mind? Isn't it wonderful to free ourselves from the shackles of political correction? To say it like it is? To not worry about people's feelings?


Source, please, for percentages of "deplorables"?

A couple of days ago, Trump supporters shouted down an alt-Right nut job at a rally. I'm still waiting for the DNC to retract their endorsement of BLM over the anti-Semitism it has officially expressed.

Actually, I was delighted when Clinton made the "deplorables" comment -- it confirmed the attitude that seemed to have characterized her campaign.
Back to top

seeker




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 4:42 pm
marina wrote:
How about not being able to name one foreign leader that you admire? That doesn't bother you?

To be honest, no. They were looking for a sound byte, he didn't have one ready instantly, so they made a big deal over his needing some time to think about it. The alternative would have been to spout off the first thing that pops into his head without thinking, which is not a priority I look for in a potential president. As he said in later interviews that brought that up, at the time he was thinking that whatever he says they are going to pick on so he would have had to end up defending some other random world leader's least popular actions instead of discussing his own policies and viewpoints. I thought that was a very valid perspective because that is exactly what the media circus looks for, whereas GJ has been consistently focused on keeping the conversation relevant and he has been well prepared to discuss his policy ideas and standpoints on important government issues. I haven't seen Trump do much of that. I'd rather stand behind someone who makes human interview fumbles but has reasonable ideas and usually makes sense, rather than someone who has no compunctions about saying things that may later be regrettable. When asked about his fumbles, Johnson basically said "Oh well, I'm human, I goofed that one" which is just about the most honest and sensible thing any candidate has said in this campaign to date. I don't agree with everything he says but that's what we have a 3-part democratic government for; as a leader I feel more comfortable with him than with the others. Plus, the chances of him becoming president are actually pretty slim but there is a pretty decent chance that with enough publicity and votes he can keep the other two from getting a majority in which case we have some chance of something else entirely.
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Oct 07 2016, 7:55 pm
Trump says, “Grab them by the p***y.” And you're concerned about a potential meeting that may have been arranged with HRC's assistance?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....4148d
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Oct 08 2016, 1:44 pm
MagentaYenta wrote:
Trump says, “Grab them by the p***y.” And you're concerned about a potential meeting that may have been arranged with HRC's assistance?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....4148d

"All the Tic Tacs in the world will not freshen his breath after this" - Stephen Colbert
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Oct 08 2016, 7:37 pm
Well.... it won't look very good for Hillary to go there considering her own husband's record.
Back to top

seeker




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Oct 08 2016, 9:05 pm
Point is, it's deplorable that choosing the president of the United States has come down to trying to judge which bad behavior is worse. We should be trying to elect the best, not the lesser of two evils. America can and should do better than this.

I also don't get why Hillary is being judged by her husband's record here. We can criticize her own reactions if you want to do that, but do you really think that a married man asks his wife's permission to do something immoral? So his behavior doesn't say anything about her. She may have said some slimy things at the time as well but that's her, not him.
Back to top
Page 1 of 2 1  2  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Dress for friend's wedding
by amother
0 Yesterday at 8:16 pm View last post
Gown gemach for friend/cousin/nieces wedding
by amother
3 Yesterday at 11:10 am View last post
Home situation of DD's friend
by amother
39 Yesterday at 10:04 am View last post
Advice for talking to son in mesivta OOT
by amother
11 Tue, Mar 19 2024, 8:29 pm View last post
Help finding a gift for a friend
by amother
3 Wed, Mar 13 2024, 10:23 am View last post