Item — HN Reader

"Rresearch done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term."

Maybe this is normal and I am naive, but this seems pretty screwed up.

7 comments

How did arms sales to other countries change in the same period?

"Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress." [0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreig...

When did the IB times folks look at their numbers? (from October 2010 to September 2012).

That looks damn cherry picked to me.

Of course it is. That's all Clinton attackers have to go on. Constant attacks that she's corrupt and untrustworthy.

Meanwhile her policies and stances are nearly identical to Sanders except with a dose of reality when it comes to implementation.

There's a world of difference between the two candidates' positions. Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas, whereas Clinton has only recently aligned herself with some of the popular ideas championed by him. (Many of these ideas were truly radical when they were first proposed, even fringe.) Clinton, like most politicians, maneuvers for votes when convenient, and when required by her deep, complex ties to industries with their own, decidedly non-populist agendas.

As for reality – if I had to define the dialogue of this election, at least on the Democratic side, it wouldn't be a focus on modest, incremental, or "practical" approaches, but rather achieving ambitious, populist goals, demanded by those with a deep frustration with and even sense of injustice about the state of politics and the world. There's a very real desire for these kinds of changes, so much so in my view that implementation will necessarily follow from such strong demand.

As a European, I have great respect for Bernie Sanders. Some of the policies he's pushing forward are actually (by his own admission) inspired by some concepts that were implemented in part of Europe (Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, France, etc) and proven to be successful in those countries (and at scales that are not ridiculous like some people in the USA posit, see France and Germany, big economies with dozens of millions of citizens).

But to be honest, he seems to be more of an idealistic that is only driven by ideology, an ideology of the common good. Because we're on HN, I can use the following metaphor: he's (kind of) the Haskell of American politics.

To compare his views to those of Clinton is unfair to her, because just like in programming, there shouldn't be scorn and contempt for someone trying to accommodate reality and pragmatism into their views, because as awesome as Bernie Sanders' ideas are, he's pushing so far to the left of American politics that finding common ground with moderate Republicans in the general election will be extremely hard. I relish that he's setting an agenda of social progress and economic justice, but do take into account that chivalrous theories are evidently great until you actually have to act upon them and draft legislation, find consensus, navigate Washington, forge alliances.

All of which is extremely hard if you don't have the kind of flexibility that Hillary Clinton possesses. I say both candidates are important for the Democrats and I'm glad they present slightly different facets of the liberal ideals in 2016 America.

> Sanders has a history of stubborn, unwavering commitment to his progressive ideas

Does that sound as a positive quality for the presidential candidate?

I don't know much about american politics in particular, but I always presume that the role of the president is based on finding compromises between different parties, slightly nudging them to what he believes is right, and making the whole political machine works.

To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president sounds like a good way to get your government completely locked. Even if you think that any other candidate is evil and this one is fighting for what you believe for, it still doesn't sound like a good idea.

If the other option is someone who will take whatever position is most politically convenient, then yes, I will choose the one who has been advocating for the things I believe in for the past 30 years over the one who just got on the bandwagon.

It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.

> It's also pretty disingenuous to suggest that one of the few independents in the Senate can't work with both sides.

If you actually read my comment, you'll notice that I not only don't mention Sanders, I don't mention US at all. I specifically construct my arguments to be abstract, because it's easier to reason about abstract model that approximate some certain aspects of reality, than trying to argue about a complex situation as a whole.

You did mention Sanders, by using him as the example which you quoted. You used him as a basis for your model, except that you used a flawed interpretation of him:

> To elect someone who is known for his inability to compromise as a president...

Having "stubborn, unwavering commitment" to ones ideals does not mean that one is incapable of compromise. That's a separate axis that may be correlated, but is not the same as commitment to your ideals.

Over-privileged 18-30 white males is not the same thing as populist. They just are they controlling voice on places like HN and Reddit.

You should put that tired narrative to bed. 50% of Sanders' donations have come from women. 69% of women under 45 voted for Sanders in New Hampshire.

> International Business Times

It's controlled by a religious cult or its leader, at least last I knew. I don't know that I put much faith in it. I'm not trying to tear down the whole story, but I think knowing and trusting sources is essential, especially in politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media#Partnerships

Someone from IBT seemed to guard their Wikipedia pages, so there's probably more than you'll read there. If you really want to dig into it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBT_Media#Olivet_and_Davi...

I'd like to know if that's adjusted for inflation (not that there's been a ton of it in the intervening years), but it's certainly worrisome. Of course, it could all be a coincidence...

How many countries donated to the Clinton Foundation? Doesn't seem a particularly incriminating detail considering the scope and breadth of the foundation.

Let's call this one irrelevant?

> How many countries donated to the Clinton Foundation?

She gets a strike for each and every one. Why oh why would a government donate money to an NGO like the Clinton Foundation if not to buy influence.

There is not a single government that doesn't have it's own poor and suffering to deal with. Others, like Qatar have their own vehicles (Qatar Foundation) through which to render aid and assistance and fund research. There is no reason to hand that off to a third party.

Are you seriously not seeing the blatant conflict of interests here?

Arab spring was happening during her tenure too, something that the countries listed wanted to make sure didn't take hold domestically.

Couldn't this be a result of the massively increased amount of conflict in the region since Bush's second term?

It's all hearsay and coincidence, stop spreading GOP FUD,stop thinking about this, and vote Clinton 2016. Don't ask questions.

GOP FUD?

Doesn't the GOP support big contributions by corporations?

If anything it should be "Sanders FUD"?