Hillary Clinton Thread

[zz912]

Aren’t Republican type people supposed to support those who make a lot of money?

Not if they made their money by selling influence and taking bribes. Making $100 million by selling US uranium rights to Russians isn’t something anyone should support. Selling State Dept favors for money isn’t something anyone should support.

 

[mary_bobo]

Not if they made their money by selling influence and taking bribes. Making $100 million by selling US uranium rights to Russians isn’t something anyone should support. Selling State Dept favors for money isn’t something anyone should support.

Nor any of the other shady misdeeds associated with her.

 

[Thorolfr]

Not if they made their money by selling influence and taking bribes. Making $100 million by selling US uranium rights to Russians isn’t something anyone should support. Selling State Dept favors for money isn’t something anyone should support.

So what do you think of the Koch family, one of the most influential financial supporters of the Republican party? Here’s some interesting information about Fred C. Koch who built the Koch family fortune:

In 1929 Koch’s partner Lewis Winkler’s former employer, Universal Oil Products (now UOP LLC), sued Winkler-Koch for patent infringement. Also that year, nearly three years before the patent case went to trial, Winkler-Koch signed contracts to build petroleum distillation plants in the Soviet Union, which did not recognize intellectual property rights.[12]

This extended litigation effectively put Winkler-Koch out of business in the U.S. for several years. “Unable to succeed at home, Koch found work in the Soviet Union”.[13] Between 1929 and 1932 Winkler-Koch “trained Bolshevik engineers[14] and helped Stalin’s regime set up fifteen modern oil refineries” in the Soviet Union. “Over time, however, Stalin brutally purged several of Koch’s Soviet colleagues. Koch was deeply affected by the experience, and regretted his collaboration.”[13] The company also built installations in countries throughout Europe, the Middle East and Asia.[1] According to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, Koch partnered with William Rhodes Davis to build the third-largest oil refinery serving the Third Reich, a project which was personally approved by Adolf Hitler.[15] Koch President and COO David L. Robertson acknowledged that Winkler-Koch provided the cracking unit for the 1934 Hamburg refinery, but said that it was but one of many “iconic” American companies doing business in Germany at the time.[16]

Having succeeded in securing the family fortune, Koch joined new partners in 1940 to create the Wood River Oil and Refining Company, which later became known as Koch Industries. In 1946 the firm acquired the Rock Island refinery and crude oil gathering system near Duncan, Oklahoma. Wood River was later renamed the Rock Island Oil and Refining Company.[17] In 1966 he turned over day-to-day management of the company to his son, Charles Koch.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch

The Koch’s built oil refineries for Stalin and Hitler. So how’s that for family history?

 

[YADA]

So what do you think of the Koch family, one of the most influential financial supporters of the Republican party? Here’s some interesting information about Fred C. Koch who built the Koch family fortune:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch

The Koch’s built oil refineries for Stalin and Hitler. So how’s that for family history?

And Margaret Sanger went to Germany and praised Hitler’s “solution” of euthanasia … and eugenics … Hillary Clinton praises Margaret Sanger …Hillary Clinton eagerly accepted the Margaret Sanger Award … How many Hitler Awards have the Koch Brothers accepted? I doubt if the Koch brothers are praising Hitler nor if the Koch family was supporting Hitler’s ‘solution’

And lets look at the history of the George Soros and the other 51 of the top 100 billionaires that support the democrats [to 48 republicans] … that’s right - the democrats come out tops in billionaire support - We always hear how its the rich for the republicans - but its the rich for democrats equally so

 

[Jeanne_S]

And Margaret Sanger went to Germany and praised Hitler’s “solution” of euthanasia … and eugenics … Hillary Clinton praises Margaret Sanger …Hillary Clinton eagerly accepted the Margaret Sanger Award … How many Hitler Awards have the Koch Brothers accepted? I doubt if the Koch brothers are praising Hitler nor if the Koch family was supporting Hitler’s ‘solution’

And lets look at the history of the George Soros and the other 51 of the top 100 billionaires that support the democrats [to 48 republicans] … that’s right - the democrats come out tops in billionaire support - We always hear how its the rich for the republicans - but its the rich for democrats equally so

 

[Thorolfr]

Not if they made their money by selling influence and taking bribes. Making $100 million by selling US uranium rights to Russians isn’t something anyone should support. Selling State Dept favors for money isn’t something anyone should support.

The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.

A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).

In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.

What’s the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.

What’s the evidence for that allegation? There isn’t any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.

**What’s the evidence in Clinton’s favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS’s work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.**

businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

 

[Theo520]

businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

The obvious conflict of interest is mind blowing. I don’t understand how the DNC was willing to back her with this known issue lurking.

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily, and just think. Only 31 and a half wks to go.

LOL And people will STILL be asking the question!

 

[Tomdstone]

I don’t know how anyone who claims to be Catholic or for that matter a true Christian could vote for Hillary???

I agree.
Hillary says “we need war”.
Hillary demands that religious beliefs be changed.
Hillary strongly supports abortion rights.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I agree.
Hillary says “we need war”.
Hillary demands that religious beliefs be changed.
Hillary strongly supports abortion rights.

So do you believe in religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say? Those are the religions Hillary is talking about.

 

[Peter_J]

So do you believe in religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say? Those are the religions Hillary is talking about.

I think that’s debatable, but even if it isn’t Tomdstone didn’t profess belief in those religions but only pointed out that HRC said those religions need to be changed. Does the First Amendment no longer exist?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I think that’s debatable, but even if it isn’t Tomdstone didn’t profess belief in those religions but only pointed out that HRC said those religions need to be changed. Does the First Amendment no longer exist?

No woman in the US is supposed to be kept a prisoner by her husband in the name of religion, unless of course she agrees to be. Some women do.

Hillary was speaking in the context of liberty and freedom of religion. Women have as much right to choose their religion as men do.

 

[user1234]

I don’t see how any Catholic in good conscience could vote for a woman who believes in murdering innocent children, supports same-sex marriage, endorses war, suppresses the religious freedom of Christians (Catholics in particular) and Muslims, forces hospitals to provide contraception, and basically goes against all Catholic morality.

 

[Tomdstone]

So do you believe in religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say? Those are the religions Hillary is talking about.

Here’s some context for what she said:
“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
In one sentence she talks about access to reproductive health care, then soon after she says that religious beliefs have to be changed. I don’t see where she says I am only talking about “religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say?” BTW, what particular religion says that the man is the total boss and women have no say?
Also, this has been widely interpreted all over the internet as her demanding that religious beliefs be changed to allow abortion. If she did not mean this, did she ever clarify exactly what she meant by her demand that religious beliefs be changed? Are you sure that you are not giving us your personal opinion on what you hope that she meant? But the context of what she said does not support your opinion.
nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/27/hillary-religious-beliefs-must-change-sake-abortion

 

[Peter_J]

Here’s some context for what she said:
“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
In one sentence she talks about access to reproductive health care, then soon after she says that religious beliefs have to be changed.** I don’t see where she says I am only talking about “religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say**?”

Exactly.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Here’s some context for what she said:
“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
In one sentence she talks about access to reproductive health care, then soon after she says that religious beliefs have to be changed. I don’t see where she says I am only talking about “religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say?” BTW, what particular religion says that the man is the total boss and women have no say?
Also, this has been widely interpreted all over the internet as her demanding that religious beliefs be changed to allow abortion. If she did not mean this, did she ever clarify exactly what she meant by her demand that religious beliefs be changed? Are you sure that you are not giving us your personal opinion on what you hope that she meant? But the context of what she said does not support your opinion.
nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/27/hillary-religious-beliefs-must-change-sake-abortion

What was the topic of the speech? It was women’s rights. The context supports what she said.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hillary Clinton said:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her introduction to the International Religious Freedom Report.

“More than a billion people live under governments that systematically suppress religious freedom. New technologies have given repressive governments additional tools for cracking down on religious expression. Members of faith communities that have long been under pressure report that the pressure is rising. Even some countries that are making progress on expanding political freedom are frozen in place when it comes to religious freedom. So when it comes to this human right, this key feature of stable, secure, peaceful societies, the world is sliding backwards.”

editorials.voa.gov/content/clinton-on-religious-freedom-165940756/1493310.html

It sounds to me that she believes in religious freedom.

And she hasn’t changed her mind, either.

 

[user1234]

Hillary Clinton said:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her introduction to the International Religious Freedom Report.

“More than a billion people live under governments that systematically suppress religious freedom. New technologies have given repressive governments additional tools for cracking down on religious expression. Members of faith communities that have long been under pressure report that the pressure is rising. Even some countries that are making progress on expanding political freedom are frozen in place when it comes to religious freedom. So when it comes to this human right, this key feature of stable, secure, peaceful societies, the world is sliding backwards.”

editorials.voa.gov/content/clinton-on-religious-freedom-165940756/1493310.html

It sounds to me that she believes in religious freedom.

And she hasn’t changed her mind, either.

Nevertheless, voting for her would still not be justified. She supports abortion for goodness sakes! No Catholic can support her in good conscience!

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Hillary Clinton said:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her introduction to the International Religious Freedom Report.

“More than a billion people live under governments that systematically suppress religious freedom. New technologies have given repressive governments additional tools for cracking down on religious expression. Members of faith communities that have long been under pressure report that the pressure is rising. Even some countries that are making progress on expanding political freedom are frozen in place when it comes to religious freedom. So when it comes to this human right, this key feature of stable, secure, peaceful societies, the world is sliding backwards.”

editorials.voa.gov/content/clinton-on-religious-freedom-165940756/1493310.html

It sounds to me that she believes in religious freedom.

And she hasn’t changed her mind, either.

Unless religious freedom means not making nuns like the Daughters of Charity have to pay for abortions; unless it means forcing a florist to cater to a gay so called wedding-then not so much.

You seem to be a very intelligent person (aside from your politics ), so I know that you know that we aren’t dumb enough to miss HRC’s positions on these issues. So what’s the point?

No Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate while even a slightly pro-life candidate is available.*

*I add the slightly not because I do not believe that all of the Republicans candidates are pro-life, but for emphasis

 

[Tomdstone]

What was the topic of the speech? It was women’s rights. The context supports what she said.

Well, look, you didn’t answer the question. You are a theology professor and you should know the answer to the question, or perhaps what you claimed is false.

So do you believe in religions in which the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say? Those are the religions Hillary is talking about.

What religion teaches that: " the man is total boss, in which the woman has no say?"
Secondly, she just said that:“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care" then she adds that religious beliefs have to be changed. The women’s rights she is talking about are the rights to reproductive health care, which has been widely interpreted to mean the right to abortion. In fact, at a rally she said “We need a leader who is passionate about abortion”.