BREAKING: Hillary Clinton's toe

[klnOmega]

I don't understand the continued obsession with this woman, she's a retired politician who failed to win the presidency twice, why continue to care?

Because she won't just fuck off like everyone wants her to. She insists on keeping her face out there.

 

[drstrangelov]

Because she's an incredibly corrupt politician, the figurehead for the left, and as such both her corruption and hypocrisy are necessary to be exposed.

Lol, she's not even a particularly long tenured politician, anybody who's spent more than 10 years in the congress will have more dirt on them than Hillary. The left didn't turn out for Hillary, they let her lose to unpopular Trump. I think she's been made into a focal point of faux conservative outrage, and even in her irrelevance a lot of people can't let go of that.

 

[electricfuneral]

i guess threads like these you see people in their natural state lol

 

[drstrangelov]

Because she won't just fuck off like everyone wants her to. She insists on keeping her face out there.

You should realize that it's the hateful obsession of the right that's keeping her in the news, really. If Obama voters couldn't stop shitting on romney after his loss, he'd have remained in the public eye as well.

 

[bobgeese]

Lol, she's not even a particularly long tenured politician, anybody who's spent more than 10 years in the congress will have more dirt on them than Hillary. The left didn't turn out for Hillary, they let her lose to unpopular Trump. I think she's been made into a focal point of faux conservative outrage, and even in her irrelevance a lot of people can't let go of that.

So you're totally ok with 160 million dollars being funneled into her sham charity from parties with interests in uranium one, which ended up in the hands of Russia?

 

[drstrangelov]

So you're totally ok with 160 million dollars being funneled into her sham charity from parties with interests in uranium one, which ended up in the hands of Russia?

Yes, unless there's a deal to do anything in exchange for donations to her family's charity, it's no different from every other politician accepting donations from corporate interests.

Also, why do you call her husband's foundation a sham?

 

[klnOmega]

You should realize that it's the hateful obsession of the right that's keeping her in the news, really. If Obama voters couldn't stop shitting on romney after his loss, he'd have remained in the public eye as well.

She just wrote a book and is doing a book tour. She is all over late night television shows and is getting love letters and hugs from celebrities everywhere you look. Hillary is doing that shit, not the right.

It sounds like what you really want is all praise for her, and to allow no criticism. When she appears on Colbert or Miley Cyrus breaks down into tears telling her how great she is, etc...you are fine. As someone speaks up and says "You know Miley, she isn't that great", you call foul.

 

[bobgeese]

Yes, unless there's a deal to do anything in exchange for donations to her family's charity, it's no different from every other politician accepting donations from corporate interests.

Also, why do you call her husband's foundation a sham?

Because it's blatantly clear their "charity" (which is on multiple charity watchdog lists) was a front for buying political influence.

Have you not read the news about this? There has been 160 million dollars funneled into their "charity", from parties with interests in uranium one. Do you honestly believe these people donated millions of dollars for no reason?

Btw, these payments were documented by the NYT of all places, hardly a right wing organization.

 

[drstrangelov]

Because it's blatantly clear their "charity" (which is on multiple charity watchdog lists) was a front for buying political influence.

Have you not read the news about this? There has been 160 million dollars funneled into their "charity", from parties with interests in uranium one. Do you honestly believe these people donated millions of dollars for no reason?

Btw, these payments were documented by the NYT of all places, hardly a right wing organization.

Honestly, what do you consider a reputable charity watchdog list? Most charity's become targets for scrutiny when people begin to understand how they operate as organizations and not as bastions of pure altruism. If they're taking the money they receive and spending it, after operating costs, on the things they've set out to accomplish when asking for money, it's not a sham.

I'm not disputing the facts of any specific donations, only the implication. Politicians receive huge contributions from people with clearly defined interests constantly, and those interests tend to be served by politicians over the long term. They don't make deals to change policy in exchange for cash, but they accept the cash and when it comes time to change policy, they remember who supports them. That's why I don't view Clinton as any more corrupt than anybody else who runs for office. Calling her a crook can be honest, but the standard you'd have to use to get there would make her just one of many and, as a result, unexceptional.

 

[drstrangelov]

She just wrote a book and is doing a book tour. She is all over late night television shows and is getting love letters and hugs from celebrities everywhere you look. Hillary is doing that shit, not the right.

It sounds like what you really want is all praise for her, and to allow no criticism. When she appears on Colbert or Miley Cyrus breaks down into tears telling her how great she is, etc...you are fine. As someone speaks up and says "You know Miley, she isn't that great", you call foul.

I never paid any attention to her press tour, to be honest, it didn't crack my news feed, didn't receive any positive spin on here, and wasn't covered in any of the media I consumed when it was going on. I don't care about her one way or another, sincerely, and since the election the only time I've really seen her mentioned is in obsessive negative commentary like this. I know Joe Biden has been on late night a few times, got some honors, that came and went with no one really noticing. The same could have happened with Clinton if people like you weren't so obsessed with her.

 

[bobgeese]

Honestly, what do you consider a reputable charity watchdog list? Most charity's become targets for scrutiny when people begin to understand how they operate as organizations and not as bastions of pure altruism. If they're taking the money they receive and spending it, after operating costs, on the things they've set out to accomplish when asking for money, it's not a sham.

I'm not disputing the facts of any specific donations, only the implication. Politicians receive huge contributions from people with clearly defined interests constantly, and those interests tend to be served by politicians over the long term. They don't make deals to change policy in exchange for cash, but they accept the cash and when it comes time to change policy, they remember who supports them. That's why I don't view Clinton as any more corrupt than anybody else who runs for office. Calling her a crook can be honest, but the standard you'd have to use to get there would make her just one of many and, as a result, unexceptional.

From Reuters, again hardly a right wing organization.


WATCHDOG GROUP NOT SATISFIED
Meredith McGehee, the policy director of the non-profit watchdog group the Campaign Legal Center, said the foundation was “hiding behind technicalities.”


“These explanations do nothing but raise more questions,” she said of Bazbaz’s comments. “It gives the feeling that they’re not coming clean.”

Transparency watchdog groups and experts in charity law have said the issues with the foundation’s public financial records are not evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, but they make it more difficult to grasp how the charities raise and spend money.

“It’s clear that anyone wanting an accurate picture of the money flowing in and out of the Clinton Foundation using public records would fail miserably because the public records are both inaccurate and fairly opaque,” McGehee said.

The foundation declined to provide Reuters with the government grant break-outs that should have been disclosed on the foundation’s tax returns for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 

[drstrangelov]

From Reuters, again hardly a right wing organization.


WATCHDOG GROUP NOT SATISFIED
Meredith McGehee, the policy director of the non-profit watchdog group the Campaign Legal Center, said the foundation was “hiding behind technicalities.”


“These explanations do nothing but raise more questions,” she said of Bazbaz’s comments. “It gives the feeling that they’re not coming clean.”

Transparency watchdog groups and experts in charity law have said the issues with the foundation’s public financial records are not evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, but they make it more difficult to grasp how the charities raise and spend money.

“It’s clear that anyone wanting an accurate picture of the money flowing in and out of the Clinton Foundation using public records would fail miserably because the public records are both inaccurate and fairly opaque,” McGehee said.

The foundation declined to provide Reuters with the government grant break-outs that should have been disclosed on the foundation’s tax returns for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Reuters is reporting that a watchdog group has questions, and that these concerns are "not evidence of deliberate wrongdoing", this is why I asked if you have standards for what is and isn't a reputable list of charitable watchdog list, even this article doesn't say whether this is unusual activity by a charity or merely the product of exceptional scrutiny due to the clintons public profile.

 

[bobgeese]

Reuters is reporting that a watchdog group has questions, and that these concerns are "not evidence of deliberate wrongdoing", this is why I asked if you have standards for what is and isn't a reputable list of charitable watchdog list, even this article doesn't say whether this is unusual activity by a charity or merely the product of exceptional scrutiny due to the clintons public profile.

The "standard" for a good charity is around 75%.


From NYPost


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.


But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”




........



This is without the overwhelming evidence of influence buying at the Clinton foundation, their suspicious bookkeeping, etc.

 

[USA!USA!]

What is she doing? You're 70, just let it go and ride off into the sunset.

Power hungry ghoul

 

[drstrangelov]

The "standard" for a good charity is around 75%.


From NYPost


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.


But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”




........



This is without the overwhelming evidence of influence buying at the Clinton foundation, their suspicious bookkeeping, etc.

So we've established they're not a "good" charity from a direct aid perspective, and they have a high payroll, but that the Clintons aren't profiting personally from it, only getting some travel perks. So, your efforts to illustrate the failures of their charity undercut the idea that they are trading influence for personal gain.

 

[zebby23]

Hillary lost... Man you right wingers need to get over it

 

[bobgeese]

So we've established they're not a "good" charity from a direct aid perspective, and they have a high payroll, but that the Clintons aren't profiting personally from it, only getting some travel perks. So, your efforts to illustrate the failures of their charity undercut the idea that they are trading influence for personal gain.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?


Over a hundred million dollars has been documented flowing into their "charity" from parties interested in uranium one. Now that is just what we know of, because the way their foundation was set up, they can receive anonymous donations. We only found out about this (I'm going from memory here, so bear with me if it's not 100%), through irregularities in the donators financial statements.


This is just a single case.

How about the arms deals approved under the Clinton state department?

This is one of many charges levered against them.




The fact is, questionable people have dumped millions and millions of dollars into their foundation. The only reasonable answer is influence buying.

 

[unimackpass]

Every Republican should donate to a campaign fund for Hilary 2020<45>

It would be epic.

 

[Teppodama]

I must admit I wonder how far she would have gotten in her political career without having Bill's successes and connections to propel her? In the same thought, I wonder how far Bill's career would have gotten without her behind the scenes efforts to help further his aspirations. Of the two, I think she was always the more effective ruthless brain who understood the political game better.

 

[KillMeGod]

look at all you disgusting animals reveling in the pain of a little old grandma who hurt herself... you people are sick