Clinton Crime Family Foundation

[Shalamar]

[citation needed]

You claim the above? Prove it. Don't just assume it. Provide clear, concise references that what you claim is TRUE.

As for the insults. Stop it.

 

[logger]

Oh and there was someone who came up with the Clinton Crime family Foundation title. Lets see how informed you libs are of the opposition. No googling.

 

[Minoosh]

There is evidence we should be leery of this charity, IMO, and I don't know why logger refuses to give it - perhaps being perverse for the fun of it. A., it does not operate anything like charities that have 20 percent overhead, for example. It's almost all overhead. Grants are 10 to 20 percent (I'm on a phone, but from laptop got first-page hits featuring criticism from the Washington Post and New York Times. ) It sounds like a big networking organization. I did not delve deep enough to figure what the funds actually go for, but it reminds me if the Hunger Project - lofty goals, strange mechanics. B. Though neither Clinton holds public office now, currying their favor with donations to their foundation is exactly the sort of workaround many liberals or progressives view with suspicion. C. It has foreign donors, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who can't legally contribute to U.S. political campaigns.

Why conservatives prefer trollish behavior to pointing this stuff out is beyond me. I'm trying to put out some factual stuff because they refuse to. I'm typing from memory and will be offline for awhile so please correct me if the above points seem untrue or unfair.

I'm beginning to think it might take one-party (GOP) rule to expose the fact that today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" are fundamentally not interested in cooperating or in evidence-based argument and decision-making. Some decent people are being held hostage by the boogeyman called "the base" - and man, are they *base* - haters and trolls. All-Republican rule would be a chance, IMO, for moderates to come back out of the closet and admit that science denial and religious fundamentalism are not effective paths to progress.

 

[The Big Dog]

The "altruistic" Clinton Family Foundation had free lance intelligence operative and campaign hatchet man Sid Blumenthal on the payroll, while he was secretly advising Hillary Clinton and representing foreign agencies doing business with the State Department.

Hillary and Sid forgot to mention that, tho.

Hillary wanted to add him to the staff at the State Department, but Obama said no because he hates his guts.

Hillary found a "work around."

 

[logger]

Hillary found a "work around."

Lol

The Clintons finding a "work around", another surprise.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 0

 

[Molinaro]

Lol

The Clintons finding a "work around", another surprise.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 0

You see nothing wrong with latching onto it without having been given any supporting evidence for the multiple claims in the post you *snip* quoted?

 

[The Big Dog]

You see nothing wrong with latching onto it without having been given any supporting evidence for the multiple claims in the post you *snip* quoted?

A real skeptic does not need to be given anything.

He probably googled blumenthal, there are 100's of articles about it.

Treat yourself, Google it yourself.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm beginning to think it might take one-party (GOP) rule to expose the fact that today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" are fundamentally not interested in cooperating or in evidence-based argument and decision-making. Some decent people are being held hostage by the boogeyman called "the base" - and man, are they *base* - haters and trolls. All-Republican rule would be a chance, IMO, for moderates to come back out of the closet and admit that science denial and religious fundamentalism are not effective paths to progress.

I'm not exactly willing to risk an American Dark Age in the hope that it forces Republicans in general to have an epiphany about their behavior.

 

[Suddenly]

Though neither Clinton holds public office now, currying their favor with donations to their foundation is exactly the sort of workaround many liberals or progressives view with suspicion.

Let me help here: Clinton is neither a liberal nor a progressive. At best a moderate. Speaking for liberals and progressives, we already don't care much for the Clintons and are suspicious of them already. Nothing new or shocking here, even were the allegations here all true.

However, the GOP is so bonkers insane right now that we don't care. At least those of us with any sense of reality don't. There is no such thing as a moderate Republican today, just those who are right wing nutters and those that are so scared of a primary challenge from the right wing nutters that they act like right wing nutters.

It is a shame, but in an era when the GOP prides itself on lack of compromise and has the inside track on both houses of Congress due to gerrymandering in the house and how the Senate naturally favors rural states, the chief virtues I look for in a presidential candidate is that she isn't a Republican and knows how the veto works. Past that, whatever.

 

[Ladewig]

Oh and there was someone who came up with the Clinton Crime family Foundation title. Lets see how informed you libs are of the opposition. No googling.

Perhaps the most bizarre in a thread full of bizarre posts.

I had no idea who coined the phrase, so I looked it up. Rush Limbaugh.

Knowing all the taunts that Rush Limbaugh uses is not a measure of how informed one is of the opposition. Rush Limbaugh is not the opposition. Rush Limbaugh is a sanctimonious blow hard who kicked a drug habit after claiming moral superiority. What a strange, strange world you live in.

ETA
I'd happily vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton. Get your party to nominate someone who isn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy and I'll come over to your side.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

Let's invoke the Rule of So. (A nonsensical rule that posters with no arguments to offer hide behind.)

So you think the George W. Bush Foundation should give all that money they collected back to the donors? Want them investigated do you? I mean... daddy's a President, namesake's a president, they are part of a political dynasty with a brother now running for POTUS. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Geo. W. Bush Foundation is #66 on the Forbes list of top charities (by income) in America? And I, too, find it a scandal that the Clintons made 25 million between them with just over 100 speeches, while Dubya had to settle for a paltry 110,000 per speech and had to pick himself up by his bootstraps and make 140 speeches just to get his first 15 million in honorariums! America, every man a king!

How about his daddy's library at A&M? Think those donors were merely paying back favors granted or were they buying favors for the future?

I look forward to your astute analysis of the expenses, salaries and donations. (EG3000 is on vacation, or I'm sure he'd apply his broken database to it for you.)

 

[SezMe]

As for bankrupting the country from mismanagement, ever hear of a guy named Obama?

I have heard of him. Let's look at the deficit as a measure of his mismanagement:

Recessions are denoted by the vertical grey bars. That huge dip at 2009 is Bush's Great Recession. Since then the deficit has dropped sharply every year.

Obama's mismanagement? Real world facts shout NO!

Please stop being so radically partisan; that is one of the biggest problems in politics.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[SezMe]

I'm beginning to think it might take one-party (GOP) rule to expose the fact that today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" are fundamentally not interested in cooperating or in evidence-based argument and decision-making.

This was not enough evidence for you?


That's the "TOP PRIORITY" for one of only two major political parties in the USA. Nope, I don't need to be hit over the head with a 2x4 to see malfeasance when it is so clearly displayed.

 

[Minoosh]

Lol
It seems your calling people out is one sided, imagine that.

A bit phony dontcha think?

Can't help yourself, can you? My post must be about my personal phoniness. Grow up, get a pair - buy them if you have to - and support your arguments. In my experience "liberals" (on this forum) do not indulge in the "lol, yer an idiot (or phony, hypocritical, etc.)" style of argument nearly as much as the self-proclaimed "conservatives." I may be unconsciously biased, but I doubt it.

I posted an article about their foundation, my points have been largely from that since it gave so much info. Sure people on here ask lots of questions, normally gotcha questions. Fact is liberals are lazy ...

See above re: Grow up, get a pair, etc. Make your own argument. Posting a link and engaging in a bunch of passive-aggressive BS might amuse you and that's your right until forum discipline kicks in. It does nothing to establish good-faith dialogue and IMO underscores the phoniness and/or laziness of conservative arguments in general. My bet: That tendency will not help the cause in 2016.

... so it makes sense they would want others doing their homework for them.

One more time around kiddo: Grow up, etc., etc. It's your thread. Make your case.

By never advancing a credible argument, you underscore your unwillingness or inability to do so. It makes some kind of sense because under those terms, you can't lose. It's probably my mistake to engage with you, though you call me a phony. (BTW: How did you determine I was a phony? I'll be shocked, I say, shocked, if you fail to support your personal insult.)

Wait - unless your secret agenda is to discredit conservatives? In that case carry on, you're doing brilliantly.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not exactly willing to risk an American Dark Age in the hope that it forces Republicans in general to have an epiphany about their behavior.

Yeah, I appreciate that there is a significant potential downside to the scenario.

I don't believe that by January 2017 a majority of Americans will want to arm every teacher, vacate Roe v. Wade and undermine 8 years of progress toward marriage equality and affordable health care. Is this a caricature of the GOP platform? If so, I say, not by much. Their own positions will sound more and more like satire as time rolls on.

YMMV

 

[Minoosh]

This was not enough evidence for you?

But it didn't work, did it? Unseating Obama might have been the GOP's top priority, but only phrased as a negative. There was never a commensurately positive message to elect John McCain or Mitt Romney. If conservatives can rally around a plausible candidate, OK then. But that doesn't seem to happen. Candidates pander to the base, then try to position themselves as moderates and end up pleasing no one.

To drift back to the OP: The Clintons are IMO working family connections to the max, but they also have a reputation for effectiveness. Their power couple "brand" may backfire - it's a potential PR problem for Hillary, with the Clinton Foundation also an obvious target.

 

[Belz...]

Is it ethical for two liberals to become incredibly wealthy working for a charity?

Yes.

 

[Lothian]

Yes.

So by that logic you think it ethical for philanthropist Bill Gates to get rich while working for his charitable foundation which ultimately will distribute 95% of his wealth...... errr..... I need to think about this one.

 

[kmortis]

Knock off the insults, all of ya'!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[eeyore1954]

Is it ethical for two liberals to become incredibly wealthy working for a charity? Do you liberals see anything wrong with this latest scandal from your nominee?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/u...nton-came-with-500000-for-his-foundation.html

Do you really think they are becoming wealthy because of that charity. I am pretty sure Bill Clinton could easily command high speaking fees without it.

Do you think much of that 500,000 donation goes into the pockets of the Clintons?
Admittedly I don't know enough about it but I believe they started the charity with good intentions and try to use the money wisely.