US Presidential Election XII

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm struggling to understand the idignation here. Yes, they donated ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION dollars. To a CHARITY. One that has done lots of good around the world.

And has some of the highest marks of any charity in the world from independent charity watchdogs.

88% of all money that comes in goes straight to their programs. That's an incredibly high percentage in the non profit, charity world.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump gave more than $100,000 to the the Clinton Foundation, the organization the Republican nominee now calls "the most corrupt enterprise in political history."

lolz

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

He interprets the lack of complete information on Clinton's schedule as meaning there is no story here. Rather, it's a story in and of itself. The only access to schedules that the writers of the story had were those that came from a lawsuit, and even then those were hand picked by the State Department. Yglesias points out that they "couldn't come up with anything worse" than a few meetings that seem very positive for Clinton. Isn't that the whole point? That they picked and chose which ones were released to reflect positively on Clinton? It begs the question what else was on the schedule.



This isn't conspiratorial nonsense. Just because many of Clinton's critics, especially those on the right, are spewing nonsense about her constantly, does not mean that she is beyond criticism. There is typical politician stuff that every politician does. Clinton's issues go beyond that, while also falling short of the issues Trump has. Both things can be true.



Also, the 85 donors the AP cited donated $156 million. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION. That is a fucking massive amount.

So, just because there's not a story here now, doesn't mean there's not a story here somewhere?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

While Clinton having a massive charity that funnels tens of millions of dollars is certainly a topic of interest that should be looked at, I'm waiting for someone to point out something illegal or highly suspicious.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

While Clinton having a massive charity that funnels tens of millions of dollars is certainly a topic of interest that should be looked at,

Because of her position, or just charities in general?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I'm struggling to understand the indignation here. Yes, they donated ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION dollars. To a CHARITY. One that has done lots of good around the world.

Perhaps she should hold a press conference to reinforce this point

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

Because of her position, or just charities in general?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

My intention was just to say that a major presidential candidate should be scrutinized in all lights. So, because of her potential position.

It just so turns out that you've got to be equal. And the Clinton Foundation, with a null hypothesis of clean, is a positive for Clinton. I can't imagine the Donald's philanthropy extends beyond his tax breaks.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

While Clinton having a massive charity that funnels tens of millions of dollars is certainly a topic of interest that should be looked at,

Is it though? I mean, if they were less than forthcoming about financial information, sure, but that's clearly not the case here. We've got 30 years of the Clintons' tax returns, and they disclose all their Foundation's donors, amounts, and where the money goes.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

My intention was just to say that a major presidential candidate should be scrutinized in all lights. So, because of her potential position.

Fair enough


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Perhaps she should hold a press conference to reinforce this point

What's the obsession with press conferences?

It's another fake controversy you're chasing. And a weird one at that...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

When people give the clintons money all they get is a receipt, when people give Trump money they get to go to university

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Is it though? I mean, if they were less than forthcoming about financial information, sure, but that's clearly not the case here. We've got 30 years of the Clintons' tax returns, and they disclose all their Foundation's donors, amounts, and where the money goes.

Then there's nothing to worry about and logical argument will show that the Clinton foundation should only have positive impact on her campaign. That doesn't mean it's not something worthy of considering at first.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by BVS

What's the obsession with press conferences?

It's another fake controversy you're chasing. And a weird one at that...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

264 days without a major media press conference. It's not weird, actually it is weird. Presidents and candidates usually do them amirite?

[LuckyNumber7]

So many days without a "major" press conference because she's hiding her flash light epinephrine and large sums of Bahrainian donations.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

So many days without a "major" press conference because she's hiding her flash light epinephrine and large sums of Bahrainian donations.

Don't forget the catheter bag filled with hot sauce for easy pandering

[LuckyNumber7]

How could I forget...

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

264 days without a major media press conference. It's not weird, actually it is weird. Presidents and candidates usually do them amirite?

There's no precedent of having to have press conferences. She hasn't needed to, doesn't that tell you something?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

He interprets the lack of complete information on Clinton's schedule as meaning there is no story here. Rather, it's a story in and of itself. The only access to schedules that the writers of the story had were those that came from a lawsuit, and even then those were hand picked by the State Department. Yglesias points out that they "couldn't come up with anything worse" than a few meetings that seem very positive for Clinton. Isn't that the whole point? That they picked and chose which ones were released to reflect positively on Clinton? It begs the question what else was on the schedule.

This isn't conspiratorial nonsense. Just because many of Clinton's critics, especially those on the right, are spewing nonsense about her constantly, does not mean that she is beyond criticism. There is typical politician stuff that every politician does. Clinton's issues go beyond that, while also falling short of the issues Trump has. Both things can be true.

Also, the 85 donors the AP cited donated $156 million. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SIX MILLION. That is a fucking massive amount.

I love Matt "actually the Nazis were mostly pretty good" Yglesias, plus other assorted opinions.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by womanfish

SHE doesn't get contributions from them. It's a charity, in which she no longer is an active member, and where she receives ZERO compensation. And as of yet, no one can point to one thing that shows any impropriety happened because of donations that were given to the foundation.

OK, I mean that's fair, but we are talking about the reality that people donate to charities to grease wheels, so let's not pretend that anyone donating to the Clinton Foundation isn't hoping for a favor or two. Hence, I'm a little uncomfortable with it.

I have no problem with the Clinton Foundation, nor how much money it takes in, if it's really such a well run organization.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by BVS

Lesbian Farmers

Originally Posted by corianderstem

now we're talking.