General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
The same allegations against the Clinton Foundation were raised last year, and FactCheck.org found them to be not just misleading, but "simply wrong." Their discussion answers most of the allegations raised on this thread.
Once again, Joe Fan has done a wonderful job of regurgitating the nonsense that comes out of the fringe right. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that his crap doesn't come from Brietbart, which he previously denied reading. But clearly, he gets his crap from someone who thinks and acts like Breitbart.
Once again, Joe Fan has done a wonderful job of regurgitating the nonsense that comes out of the fringe right. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that his crap doesn't come from Brietbart, which he previously denied reading. But clearly, he gets his crap from someone who thinks and acts like Breitbart.
I don't need someone's biased interpretation to read a tax return, and Joe Fan didn't prepare the tax return.
You can act like the numbers aren't on the return, or point to others that lie or try to mischaracterize the blatant, obvious, unadulterated revenues and expenses on the tax return, but they are clear and unambiguous. Pull your head out of......well..you know the rest.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
You either (a) didn't read the information I linked to, (b) don't know how to read and interpret a financial statement and tax return, or (c) don't care about the truth. I suspect it is (a), but wouldn't rule out (c). I'm pretty sure it isn't (b), but who knows.
I don't have time to get into the weeds on all of this but the key is that the foundation's revenues go 10% to charitable donations, 12% to administration and fundraising, and 78% to project-related expenses. Yes, the project-related expenses include a lot of travel and salary, but that isn't surprising for an international charity. They have to pay people to do the work, and they have to get them where they have to go.
Take the first project listed in the link -- the foundation helps train rural farmers and give them access to seeds, equipment, etc. Pulling that off requires paying salaries to appropriately qualified personnel, getting them and the need supplies into the right places, etc. Those things are expensive, and they show up in the foundation's tax returns as expenses. That doesn't make them administrative expenses, much less frauds.
By your definition, charities like the Red Cross would be scams. Those organizations spend huge sums on travel, salaries, etc. Some of these expenses are administrative, but most are for programs and are reported as such.
Every charity rating service in existence compares the sum of donations and program expenses against the sum of administrative and fundraising expenses. If the first donations and program expenses add up to at least 75% of the total, that is considered good. Higher, of course, is better. The Clinton Foundation was at 88% last year. That figure is based on the same "blatant, obvious, unadulterated revenues and expenses on the tax return" that you claim show something different.
I know, I know -- I'm just a stark-raving liberal trying to defend Hillary Clinton. Never mind that I routinely criticize Hillary as being dishonest and corrupt, and that my first choice in this election cycle was a Republican who is more conservative than Donald Trump.
Acknowledging the truth is hard to do, but you should give it a try.
If the GOP holds the Senate, they'll never confirm Obama. If they lose the Senate, It hink they'll filibuster him. I still think that they'll confirm Garland in a lame duck session.
I already got into the weeds and read the tax returns and audits.
The first truth is that this is a scam camouflaged by minor charity work of an indeterminate nature (unless illusory "climate change work" and "economic development" qualify as charity). Note the money being transferred to friends of Clinton now and in the past. You don't need ten people making between $170,000 and $484,000 for a small charity like this, and you certainly don't need to spend $700,000 per month on travel, and $768,000 per month on conventions.
The second truth is you can't see through the bull **** because you don't analyze financial statements for a living. If you did, you would know that the following is "blue sky" covered with flowery language to make it seem like the foundation is actually doing something regarding "project related expenses" :
"...we aim to help parents and business take meaningful action..." (parents and businesses need to work harder!)
"....building strategic partnerships...." (hey, can you partners go do something!)
"...challenge developers and designers to do "x"..." (damn developers and designers just won't do anything!)
"help communities address climate change" (come on communities, do something!)
"transfer communities from what they are to what they can be" (whatever that means)
"leverage technology and digital innovation" (uh, okay)
"the foundation facilitated..." (i.e. someone else did the work)
Note that they actually don't do anything but ask other people to do things. Their own mission statement says "CGIs mission is to inspire, connect, and empower everyone to forge solutions to the worlds most pressing challenges. CGI convenes leaders from the private sector, public sector, and Civil society to drive action through its unique model rather than directly implementing projects"
Their model is so "unique" that one rating agency won't even rate them. For a charity that directly implements projects to the tune of $60million, they sure have an unusual mission statement. How can you have $60million of direct program expenses but you don't do anything directly?
If they had something in their history such as:
"we fed 20 million children", or "we vaccinated 10 million in Haiti", or "we built ten new schools",
they would actually be believable.
Last edited:
Facts don't matter to liberals.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
One of the things about that 10% grant factoid is that it came directly from the Foundations' own tax filings.
Once signed and filed, tax returns become official documents and are considered "presumptively valid." That presumption can be rebutted with facts to the contrary. However, in this case, in order to do that, the rebuttal must come the Clintons (their Foundation and/or their other actors). Which puts them in the awkward position of having to submit facts that rebut their own return (which was signed by someone(s) under penalty of perjury).
And so, if the Clinton's now say that the 10% they claimed on their return went to charity was wrong, or fake or false, then that is tantamount to admitting tax fraud.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
You missed the update. I am not Brietbart anymore but Roger Stone.
It is unclear at this moment who i will be next week.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
One of the striking revelations about the pie chart is how much goes to "overhead."
This is one of the things I have always hated about 501(3)(C)s -- the waste and abuse. The one that used to bug me the most was United Way - which is a sort of an umbrella group to a bunch of charities. I am not sure how state, county and city govt's work, but in the federal government, there is a large movement to have all employees "donate" a part of their salary to groups like United Way.
The way it works is that, once a year, someone from your office (we usually had two people) go around to everyone and get them to commit or pledge. A form is signed. Then a percentage of your paycheck comes out automatically, every pay period, to whatever charitable group you designate (there were alot of choices). The peer pressure to do this is tremendous. And so basically everyone does. I cant speak to the lower GS scale employees (who literally scraped by every month) but among the professional class, climbing up the GS scale, I bet compliance was pretty close to 100%.
As the individual employees, you tend to forget about it over time. It just something you did. It was not that much. It was something you could feel good about. You and your workmates could discuss who you picked and why. And so forth. I did it, everyone I knew did too.
But, if you take a moment to think about how many federal employees there are, you quickly realize this is alot of money. Even these seemingly small percentages add up.
And then you would see the executives of United Way traveling in limos and private jets everywhere, all over the world, and it would start to tick you off a bit. Then you would see reports in the WAPO (or more likely the Washington Times back then) about what percentage of the donations actually reached the charities and it would piss you off even more.
Well, what the Clintons are doing with their Foundation makes United Way look like Mother Theresa. I was pretty shocked by just how high their "overhead" is listed. The entire charity is eaten up by high salaries, first class travel and other places to dump money.
None of this passes the smell test. As someone who has seen alot of tax returns over the years, it seems apparent on its face that they are overstating expenses. Why do folks do this? The deduction aspect is one part but, in this case, the main reason is to cover up where the money is really going. One thing we know for certain, the vast bulk of the money is not going to the downstream charities.
It's a scam. It's a money laundering operation. And everyone knows it. And only the most ardent Kool-Aid drinkers would attempt to dispute this,.
This is one of the things I have always hated about 501(3)(C)s -- the waste and abuse. The one that used to bug me the most was United Way - which is a sort of an umbrella group to a bunch of charities. I am not sure how state, county and city govt's work, but in the federal government, there is a large movement to have all employees "donate" a part of their salary to groups like United Way.
The way it works is that, once a year, someone from your office (we usually had two people) go around to everyone and get them to commit or pledge. A form is signed. Then a percentage of your paycheck comes out automatically, every pay period, to whatever charitable group you designate (there were alot of choices). The peer pressure to do this is tremendous. And so basically everyone does. I cant speak to the lower GS scale employees (who literally scraped by every month) but among the professional class, climbing up the GS scale, I bet compliance was pretty close to 100%.
As the individual employees, you tend to forget about it over time. It just something you did. It was not that much. It was something you could feel good about. You and your workmates could discuss who you picked and why. And so forth. I did it, everyone I knew did too.
But, if you take a moment to think about how many federal employees there are, you quickly realize this is alot of money. Even these seemingly small percentages add up.
And then you would see the executives of United Way traveling in limos and private jets everywhere, all over the world, and it would start to tick you off a bit. Then you would see reports in the WAPO (or more likely the Washington Times back then) about what percentage of the donations actually reached the charities and it would piss you off even more.
Well, what the Clintons are doing with their Foundation makes United Way look like Mother Theresa. I was pretty shocked by just how high their "overhead" is listed. The entire charity is eaten up by high salaries, first class travel and other places to dump money.
None of this passes the smell test. As someone who has seen alot of tax returns over the years, it seems apparent on its face that they are overstating expenses. Why do folks do this? The deduction aspect is one part but, in this case, the main reason is to cover up where the money is really going. One thing we know for certain, the vast bulk of the money is not going to the downstream charities.
It's a scam. It's a money laundering operation. And everyone knows it. And only the most ardent Kool-Aid drinkers would attempt to dispute this,.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Oops --
"The leader of Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group agreed with Donald Trump when he said President Obama founded ISIS.
“This is an American presidential candidate who is saying this. What he says is based on facts and documents,” said Hassan Nasrallah, according to The Associated Press."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-leader-backs-trumps-claim-that-obama-started
"The leader of Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group agreed with Donald Trump when he said President Obama founded ISIS.
“This is an American presidential candidate who is saying this. What he says is based on facts and documents,” said Hassan Nasrallah, according to The Associated Press."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-leader-backs-trumps-claim-that-obama-started
JF
This is so stunning I do not know how it gets ignored by BO and the media. I guess it is because his boy is mayor
One of the victims was a pregnant woman . There are usually children caught in the gun fire too
But BO would rather race bait than find ways to help the people in his city.
This is so stunning I do not know how it gets ignored by BO and the media. I guess it is because his boy is mayor
One of the victims was a pregnant woman . There are usually children caught in the gun fire too
But BO would rather race bait than find ways to help the people in his city.
GreenDragonSix
100+ Posts
Why no riots in Chicago? No entrenched BLM interest there??
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Hugh Hewitt had a good idea this morning. He suggested Trump should announce that John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, would be his pick for Sec. of State. That would calm the fears of conservatives regarding Trump's obvious lack of knowledge in foreign affairs. Trump could then focus on jobs and the economy. Hope Trump was listening.
Edit: Turns out Trump mentioned that he was considering Bolton for SS when Hewitt interviewed Trump last week. It was Trump's idea. However, Trump is reluctant to name cabinet people before the election because he knows the media will attack them mercilessly. But, let's face it. He needs to do something bold. What he's doing ain't working. If the candidate is willing to fade the heat, I'd do it.
Edit: Turns out Trump mentioned that he was considering Bolton for SS when Hewitt interviewed Trump last week. It was Trump's idea. However, Trump is reluctant to name cabinet people before the election because he knows the media will attack them mercilessly. But, let's face it. He needs to do something bold. What he's doing ain't working. If the candidate is willing to fade the heat, I'd do it.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
"OOPS" would be having to look towards our longtime enemies for validation. As Jeff Foxworthy would say "Here's your sign..." It's a pattern though. Before this it was Putin validating Trump. When endorsement of your ideas are few and far between you have to take 'em where you can get 'em I guess.
Meanwhile, Yuval Rabin, Yytzach Rabin's son had some feedback for Trump in the USA Today this morning.
Trump's words are an incitement to the type of political violence that touched me personally.
utterings about “Second Amendment people” taking matters into their own hands to block a President Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court picks were a new level of ugliness in an ugly campaign season.
In Israel, incitement such as this led to the murder of my father, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, 20 years ago. Because he dared pursue peaceful relations with our neighbors, my father was contemptuously called a traitor, and posters of him dressed as a Nazi war criminal were waved at right-wing rallies.
After his murder, politicians were quick to condemn the assassin as a lone wolf. They conveniently ignored their role in creating a poisoned environment that led someone to believe that taking a life was a justifiable political act.
More than one commentator in Israel and in the U.S. has pointed to the parallels between Israel in the 1990s and the U.S. today.
Trump has called Clinton “the devil”, claimed that the election might be “rigged”, denigrated entire religions, and questioned the impartiality of the justice system.
Intentional or not, the Republican presidential nominee is removing confidence in the democratic form of governance. If an election is seen as illegitimate, if those who supported a candidate are viewed as somehow lesser “Americans,” then it becomes acceptable — and even appropriate — to work outside the political system.
USA TODAY
The Trump-Clinton divide on little people: Column
The social pact that democracies honor depends on words, not weapons, being used to debate issues. It relies on the populace accepting the outcome of elections, as well as on the ability and willingness of government officials to compromise.
But compromise becomes impossible when one’s political opponents are vilified. How can one enter into an agreement with a counter-party that is illegitimate, or worse?
You're getting sloppy on your hillbilly comedy. That's actually Bill Engvall's line.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Doh! I even googled it and found a link title "Jeff Foxworthy Here's Your Sign". Thanks for the correction.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
The 10% grant factoid is accurate and there is no reason for anyone to back away from it; what is inaccurate is your interpretation of that fact.
Trump also said we should work with the Russians in Syria, which was laughed at. Now, I just saw a blurb about joint US-Russia exercises.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The whole Putin/Trump nexus is comical.
What has Putin wanted that he has not gotten under Obama?
He used to not have Crimea, but now he has it.
He used to not have Eastern Ukraine, but now he has it (where the maj of their minerals are)
(the entire Ukraine mess was cooked up by Soros, Obama and Clinton but of course the US media has never called them on it)
+ He marched into Syria and has done whatever he wanted.
Where has Putin been retrained from anything under Obama? Why would he ever want a different US President than the one he has now?
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Hezbollah hates ISIS. Hezbollah hates The Great Satan even more. The Great Satan must be responsible for ISIS.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Isn't it funny how quickly Hillary's Diazepam-injector shadow has disappeared from the campaign?
We can only hope he is still alive.
Apparently he has been replaced by a "leaning-stool"
Kind of rude, but there it is (equal pay for stools!)
And weird how the mainstream media has never asked any questions about all of this, or her health in general, or demanded medical records. Weird
Will she make it through the campaign without hospitalization?
Will she attempt to avoid the required debates altogether?
We can only hope he is still alive.
Apparently he has been replaced by a "leaning-stool"
Kind of rude, but there it is (equal pay for stools!)
And weird how the mainstream media has never asked any questions about all of this, or her health in general, or demanded medical records. Weird
Will she make it through the campaign without hospitalization?
Will she attempt to avoid the required debates altogether?
Clean
5,000+ Posts
That's rude talking about Hillary's BMs.
I heard Trump mention that Hill was physically and mentally unfit for the Presidency yesterday for the first time. Finally he's attacking the right target. He's going to make her health a campaign issue, as well he should. We'll never know what her issues really are, but they're significant.
I heard Trump mention that Hill was physically and mentally unfit for the Presidency yesterday for the first time. Finally he's attacking the right target. He's going to make her health a campaign issue, as well he should. We'll never know what her issues really are, but they're significant.
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 306
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 503
- West Mall
