I’m just saying that fucking Obama of all people is not some powerless, apolitical figure.
That a “Foundation” is just an investment fund you don’t pay taxes on.
What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
USA
Because just making up corruption without actual evidence of such is somehow more " truth" than the actual truth right?
SO all investment funds use the money to save hundreds of millions of lives is Africa? What are they investing in if none of the money is for themselves? Why would it be a bad thing if that money they are growing is used to save even more lives? You are not explaining why this is somehow shady or wrong here. I wish more wealthy would grow the money in order to save more lives, then we could do a lot more with it to help others.
What you are really saying is that you just made up that Obama made people quit without any evidence of such? Him being influential doesn't mean anything sinister is going on. You do realize claiming he did all this "stuff" without evidence is no different than what QAnon does?
Most of their fund is invested in risky startups that if successful could make him billions. Gates’s charity is literally just tax free venture capitalism, mixed with neo-colonial exploitation of Africans to test various experimental medical technology that could make him more rich.
You were talking as if Obama was absolutely powerless. That was my only objection. He is not powerless. His influence would be worth buying.
You're funny
I'm not thinking small. If you get rid of the Silicon Valley vulture, more vultures will pop up. Just maybe in a different town. That's how reality works.
Im not saying you shouldn't be against them. Just dont think that getting rid of them will give you any space to breath. Getting rid of Silcon Valley is like voting for Biden. Solving one problem and causing 100 more
That isn't the same for the Clinton foundation FYI, you comparing the two is inaccurate. Look at what they actually spend the money on. They were treating people for tropical diseases and vaccines that pharma has deemed unprofitable because they only need them in poor countries. The Clinton foundation specifically helps people in some of the poorest nations in the world where Pharma is unwilling to go. There is no money to be made in the cures they are working on because the only people who need them are in the poorest nations. If it was profitable, Pharma would be all over it. It isn't so they don't waste their time.
No one said Obama was powerless, I am saying you are making unfounded accusations with nothing to back it up. That is what you call arse talking.
Yeah and Gates says the same shit and people believe him enough to rate his charity better than that of the Clintons. They’re all the fucking same.
Yes you fucking did. You’re framing him as exterior to politics, saying there’s nothing to gain by bribing him. Stop fucking lying.
Attachments
1) No they are not all the same. You saying they are all the same doesn't make them all the same. The Clintons are not who tells us what the Clintons are doing. All of their activity is actually well documented here. You wanting to turn it into something sinister without evidence is just you making stuff up. It isn't real. What is real is what all the evidence is here telling us.
No I didn't. Obama not being the president anymore doesn't mean he isn't influential and I never said he wasn't influential. There is nothing to gain by " bribing him" because apparently you think all speaking fees are bribes now, even when they do nothing at all to help the people who paid them outside of speaking like they were paid to do. You just lied and then told me to stop lying when you just PROVED I did no such thing.
You are making up shit and then accusing me of lying. You made up the nonsense about Obama making people quit the primaries. You made up shit about the Clinton foundation. No evidence of either. That is lying. Me telling you that he is not in politics anymore and that he wasn't bribed doesn't mean he isn't influential. Hell there are plenty of people not in politics that are influential. That doesn't mean they were bribed either. Claiming they were bribed without evidence of such is just lying.
My quote above proves I never said any such thing. Quit saying I am lying when you just proved I was not.
Whatever. Go argue with yourself if you can wear this many faces in a single argument.
Put up or shut up. Show the evidence of such or put a sock in it. When you review their actual financials, none of what they were accused of here was true. They have their receipts, where are yours?
Faces? LMAO! I tell you to PROVE they did any of these things and you don't because you were just making it up. They HAVE the proof, You have nada, here. You just showed proof I never said what you accused me of then tell me to argue with myself because you have no proof of anything here at all. All your accusations amount to less than what even QAnon came up with, which is pretty scary tbh.
I have ONE face and it is giggling at you being ridiculous.
WE have plenty to not like Clinton for, the Clinton Foundation isn't one of them. The nonsense about Obama was just unfounded nonsense. This is why we need to actually do something about disinformation because if people repeat lies like that enough times, people believe them even when there is no evidence of any of this ever happening. If you are going to be mad at them for something, it should actually be something they did not some crap you just made up.
Being pissed about bombings, Saudi Arabia arms sales, terror Tuesdays, backroom deal with Pharma are all legitimate concerns. There is no reason to make up nonsense that they didn't actually do to be mad about.
Last edited:
You still haven't offered proof of anything here. So that's it? You just make shit up then bail. Mhmmm.
What if I posted about an investigation that detailed how the foundation appeared as an avenue for quid pro quo that worried the workers and led to demands that their donors be vetted and examined?
DO that then. Though from all the investigations they already did they turned up nothing because Clintons already made all their financials 100% transparent. They already debunked the BS they attempted to claim in 2016. Of course if it is just another " investigation" making accusations that were later proved false, than it is no better than the rest of the disinformation out there. Considering Barr just came back empty handed on the unmasking it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they have another frivolous investigation going on.
Oh that was Seanchaidh's post a couple pages ago, maybe you should read it?
I did read it. it didn't show that there was any actual wrong doing there, there was insinuations. DID you read it? Also, that article was written in 2016. They already debunked that crap when they finished the investigation in 2017 and found there was no wrongdoing and their financials were 100% transparent and they made them available to the public. Also, you saw at the end of that that it said it was unconfirmed at the time of writing that article. This was all clarified when they made their financials public.
It is funny though that articles states" although there is no evidence of any quid pro quo." you spin it to look sinister.
Last edited: