Here's an article from 2007 talking about Bush's donor based political appointees, lol. Why wouldn't people who give millions of dollars to a campaign not be hooked up with something in return? That's kind of why they do it, lol.
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/...tments-to-ambassador-exceed-fathers-clintons/
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/...tments-to-ambassador-exceed-fathers-clintons/
Pay for play.....dont really care because both sides do it and it prominent in private business. Trump did the same in his real estate. When your on top its one of the perks I guess.
The best I have read on the recent leaks is the bad-mouthing each other and the stuff said about how things are supposed to go. I am not sure it does anything but just seeing how evil these guys are behind the cameras.
The best I have read on the recent leaks is the bad-mouthing each other and the stuff said about how things are supposed to go. I am not sure it does anything but just seeing how evil these guys are behind the cameras.
Of course. They are political appointees. You get some benefits when you win elections, one of those is to appoint your friends and donors who helped your campaign in to appointed positions. There is literally nothing wrong with someone who donated to a campaign to become an Ambassador. It's the perks of gambling on a campaign. The fact you guys are surprised by this and think it's wrong is the crazy thing. These emails are a joke. Just peoples private information being hacked by the Russians. That's the worst part of all this, is that you guys don't even care that the Russians are committing espionage on your own country.
What about an Irish donor that now holds the contract for the only cell towers allowed in the entire country of Haiti following their massive earthquake? An arrangement arranged by the State Department? And that same donor cashed out over $600M in dividends he gained on that deal arranged by the State Department.
I'm not talking specifics anyone Vit. I'm more or less responding to AK's ludicrous notion that it's somehow ok to appoint a friend or a donor to an appointed position in the US Government simply because they donated to you and helped you win an election. I'd say the same whether a Republican or Democrat. It's literally may be the dumbest thing ever said here on this forum.
Vit, if you don't find this plain wrong, there is nothing more I can say. If a Republican did this too I'd tell them they're wrong too.
A US Ambassador has enormous political clout and power in a country. So, some bozo owner of a company donates to your foundation, it's ok to possibly appoint them as an Ambassador and they may have no experience whatsoever? Just dumb.
