SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
By all accounts, it was the most popular gala the Lady Taverners had ever held. Over 1,000 people packed the Park Lane Hilton in London on Oct. 30, 2009, with the crowd overflowing into the hallways, to listen to President Bill Clinton speak on the power of giving.
While Clinton’s speech helped raise a substantial sum for the prominent cricket charity, his staggering $290,000 speaking fee was not covered by the group, according to organizers. The fee also was not covered by “World Management Limited,” the marketing company Hillary Clinton listed as the payment source in her federal financial filings.
It was bankrolled by a wealthy British businessman named Robert Whitton—a name you won’t find included in the Clintons’ public disclosure forms.
A review by the Washington Free Beacon found that Hillary Clinton often listed small foreign speaking firms as the sources of her husband’s lecture payments in her Senate and State Department disclosures, even though the actual paychecks came from undisclosed third parties.
In certain cases, these funders had interests that intersected with the U.S. State Department. Whitton, a real estate mogul, had business pending before UNESCO, an international agency that received a quarter of its funding from the State Department.
Source: The Washington Free Beacon
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday July 23 2016, @01:42AM
I notice that again everybody is ignoring the simple fact that according to the state depts own criteria they were not a legitimate primary by a HUGE margin. Kinda sad that if this were a banana republic it would have been labeled rigged but because its Murrica fuck yeah!? Our own rules do not apply to ourselves.
BTW just FYI according to the state dept rules for accepting an election as legit? Then the exit polls must be no more than 2% off what the election results are. in over 15 states it was at LEAST double, with some high as 12%, and in every.single.state. that had paperless voting? Yeah it was over 8% and ALWAYS for Clinton...gee what a fucking surprise. Oh and what was the result when this was pointed out right before the CA primary? Its very simple and shows how crooked the dem primary was as the polling company simply refused to do polls so nobody could see how badly off the election was!
If some country like Bolivia or Haiti tried this shit? We would have called them out and refused to accept the results...sorry but I won't vote for hypocrites and for refusing to do jack shit after it was pointed out their primary smelt that is EXACTLY what the democratic party is right now.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday July 25 2016, @03:31PM
I totally agree about the legitimate primary and exit polling thing. I'm just pointing out that 1) you shouldn't blame Nader voters for the DNC choosing a lousy candidate (though I'd take Gore in a heartbeat over Hillary; you'd think they would have learned, but apparently not, instead they've doubled down and picked the worst candidate they could find this year), and 2) the superdelegates really aren't an issue because Bernie doesn't have enough votes. Now of course, if they redid the primaries and got some legitimate results, maybe it'd be different. I don't know really, but I like to think so. But given the results we have right now, the superdelegates won't make a difference if I understand the numbers correctly, in fact I believe that if all the SDs voted for Bernie, that's the only way he could win the nomination, which is directly contrary to what you're advocating (though to be fair, I'd be completely in favor of that at this point, even if it does reek of the ends justifying the means).
But yes, the DNC is a fetid, corrupt mess right now, and this election has really brought this to light.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday July 25 2016, @09:28PM
The superdelegates are frankly just the hot steaming turd on a giant shitcake, the entire primary was soooo fucking corrupted frankly third world shitholes have more legitimate elections than what we saw.
Would Bernie have won? Fuck if I know, that is the problem with an illegitimate election, you have no fucking idea what would have happened because the whole thing was rigged from the start. But what I DO KNOW is that the entire DNC political machine is rotten to the core and is frankly unsalvagable at this point, the emails on wikileaks shows its corrupted from top to bottom.
Hopefully if the DNC gets its ass handed to them in Nov, despite poll after poll showing that Bernie could win easily? This should give those that want to clean up the mess like Bernie some serious clout, although I have to think they might be better off just leaving the sinking ship and working to make the Green Party a truly powerful third party.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.