General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

"......At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

******

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties....."

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/.../many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state
 
CqlYoClVYAA9LPc.jpg
 
Is this the explanation for that guy who shadowed Hill at all her appearances?
And what happened to that guy anyway? Where is he? Why didnt the media go find him?
Is he going to turn up dead?

CqlG-CsWYAAQfOy.jpg

CqlG-F8XEAEbdE_.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
Is this the explanation for that guy who shadowed Hill at all her appearances?
And what happened to that guy anyway? Where is he? Why didnt the media go find him?
Is he going to turn up dead?

CqlG-CsWYAAQfOy.jpg

CqlG-F8XEAEbdE_.jpg
Click to expand...

Edward Klein makes a living as a political gossip columnist. Here was the "praise" for some of his previous works from Wikipedia. He impressively had his credibility questioned by the Left and Right. Earlier it was stated about the Clinton's "how can you ever tell when they are being honest?" That quote would seem applicable to Klein also.

Criticism[edit]
Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005. Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life."[9] The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by a neoconservative as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, "Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word."[10] In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[11]

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review asked Klein in a June 20, 2005 interview, "Why on earth would you put such a terrible story in your book...that looks to be flimsily sourced at that?," regarding his suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was conceived in an act of marital rape.[12] Facing criticism from both the left and right for making the claim, Klein eventually backed away from the insinuation in an interview with radio host Jim Bohannon on June 23, 2005[13]

The British newspaper The Guardian pointed out a number of verifiable factual errors in Klein's 2014 book Blood Feud.[14]

Questions of credibility of sources in work[edit]
Klein has also come under fire for his use of anonymous quotes, purported to be from the subjects of his books, which he claims he received from anonymous insiders. The credibility of such quotes has been questioned by writers such as Joe Conason,[15] Salon's Simon Malloy [16] and conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh[17] and Peggy Noonan.[18] "Some of the quotes strike me as odd, in the sense that I don't know people who speak this way," Limbaugh said of Klein's work, describing the sources as "grade school chatter."
Click to expand...
 
This is getting pretty stupid. CNN is running this article as a headline story questioning Trump's doctors diagnosis of a clean bill of health. This is just as absurd as the HRC health conspiracies that have become so popular.
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is getting pretty stupid. CNN is running this article as a headline story questioning Trump's doctors diagnosis of a clean bill of health. This is just as absurd as the HRC health conspiracies that have become so popular.
Click to expand...

The CNN article doesn't question Trump's health. It does question the hyperbole of his doctor's statement, but overall it paints a picture of a man who us in damn good shape, especially for his age.
 
NJlonghorn said:
The CNN article doesn't question Trump's health. It does question the hyperbole of his doctor's statement, but overall it paints a picture of a man who us in damn good shape, especially for his age.
Click to expand...

Trump seems like he's in good shape and good health. I'm a little surprised Trump didn't have his doctor comment on his sexual prowess and stamina. He probably would have had this issue come up in the primary. Nevertheless, I'm not sure how a doctor could suggest that Trump would be the healthiest individual ever elected without examining every past president. That just sounds nutty.
 
I remember David Letterman making fun of Bob Dole for being old. Letterman's suggested slogan, "Dole/Old". Man, these two have to be the most aged candidates ever!
As far as HRC's health, I have no idea. I will say that incontinence in a woman of her age is extremely common. I don't know if that is an issue, but if it is, perhaps her long hours make adult diapers problematic. I won't go in to gory details, but as you can imagine, like a baby, those need to be changed.

As silly as some of this has become, I do believe it is a fair request to see recent medical records and reports of candidates from a reputable source. We have had many Presidents in office operating under less than great health. Some conditions are manageable, (I take Synthroid for example) others, such as those that impact cognition are more of a concern. Reagan with early Alzheimer's is a recent example. I don't usually pay that much attention to Vice Presidential selections, knowing that a candidate has a higher threshold for a stroke, for example, would make me think.
I'm not voting for either, so it doesn't make any difference to me, I guess.
Neither are good choices.
 
I'll be honest. I've never particularly cared about presidential health or age because every candidate I've ever voted for has chosen a VP that I'd be comfortable with becoming President. (Note - I didn't vote for McCain/Palin.) With respect to the current candidates, I'd consider both VPs to be significant improvements over the presidential nominees. Frankly, if Hillary or Trump die in office, most Americans will breathe a sigh of relief.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Edward Klein makes a living as a political gossip columnist. Here was the "praise" for some of his previous works from Wikipedia. He impressively had his credibility questioned by the Left and Right. Earlier it was stated about the Clinton's "how can you ever tell when they are being honest?" That quote would seem applicable to Klein also.
Click to expand...


Again with the diversion -- attack the source, hope no one notices, avoid the merits.
We see you.
 
Alan Smithee seems to do a pretty good job of unraveling what the Clinton Foundation does and does not do --

1. First, they do not get drugs for AIDS patients. This is a common fiction.

2. That's CHAI, and which is an independent organization.

3. They have a childhood obesity program. It essentially offers consulting to schools on the issue. That's all.

4. They have a program to expand climate-smart agronomy. Again, it's pretty much just training and an anchor farm.

5. They claim to reduce 33,500 tons of greenhouse gases in America through the HEAL program. It gives people loans, that's all.

6. There are the CGI Commitments to Action. Again, it's funding only.

7. And there's the Clinton Health Matters Initiative. It's fundraising and grants for health initiatives.

8. Of the $2,000,000,000 raised, not one dime appears to go to actual goods. All to consultants, fundraisers, etc..

9. In each case, the Clinton Foundation exists as primarily a clearing house for other people's money.

10. And they keep 90%. While they claim 88% goes to charity, that's only if they include CHAI. Which, again, is a separate organization.
 
11. The primary purpose of the Clinton Foundation is the expansion of the Clinton Foundation to pay more of its own employees.

12. In nearly every case, even slight examination shows that the Clinton Foundation acts as a consulting firm.

13. It is the charity equivalent of a Washington think tank designed to sell access.

14. Now here's the fun part. Every time a corporation joins up with the Clinton Foundation there seems to be a kickback.

15. Take for example the International Youth Fund. They got $55,000,000 in grants from Clinton's state department.

16. The International Youth Fund counts among its board members - Douglas Baker. He gave $1-5M to the Foundation.

17. But Douglas Baker is also the chair of Laureate University, who paid Bill $16,500,000 for an honorary position over 5 years.

18. $1-5M to the foundation, $16.5M to Bill personally, nets you back $55,000,000 in taxpayer funded aid.

19. What the Clintons have done with the foundation is to monetize the intersection of charity and political influence.

20. There is no good the Foundation does which does not at least additionally, if not primarily, benefit the Clintons and their entities.
 
21. It's not an isolated case. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum the ruler of Dubai paid Bill Clinton $15M through '08.

22. Now there is a Clinton Global Initiative program organizing every charity in Dubai of consequence.

23. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the UAE paid the Clintons $1-$5M despite backing some other truly sketchy groups of people.

24. The Foundation took money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, as well. Up to $40M.

25. At the same time defense contractors like Boeing ($5M), GE, ($1M), Goldman Sachs (Hawker Beechcraft) and others gave to the Foundation.

26. Both sides of these transactions then profited when the weapons were permitted to be sold in greater numbers to the donors.

27. Does the Foundation manage some good? Some. But that is mostly by funding others who do.

28. But in most cases, not one donor, but two donors are benefiting financially from the relationship.

29. As such, the Clinton Foundation is every bit as much a dealbroker as they are a charity. Donations are the broker's fee.
 
30. Now what's the back end for the Clinton family? First, $2B pays salaries forever. No Clinton need work ever again. Ever.

31. Second, the Foundation uses employment as payback, and has unlimited funds for those salaries too.

32. Third, there is a clear pattern of overlapping payments to the Clintons personally and their foundation which are not unrelated.

33. But the big deal is that every time the Foundation acts it increases the power and prestige of the Clinton Family.

34. This increases their demand as speakers, as brokers, as paid friends. And makes the entire cycle start all over again.

35. In short (too late) the Clinton Foundation is an access salesroom and an influence factory. Charity is an afterthought.
 
Joe Fan said:
1. First, they do not get drugs for AIDS patients. This is a common fiction.

2. That's CHAI, and which is an independent organization.

10. And they keep 90%. While they claim 88% goes to charity, that's only if they include CHAI. Which, again, is a separate organization.
Click to expand...

CHAI (the Clinton Health Access Initiative) is an affiliate of the CLinton Foundation, and all of their fundraising and program reporting are done on a consolidated basis. If the money raised by the Clinton Foundation is used by CHAI to do good things, why would it matter that it is formed as a separate entity?

Joe Fan said:
3. They have a childhood obesity program. It essentially offers consulting to schools on the issue. That's all.
Click to expand...

How do you fight childhood obesity, other than through training? Targeting schools seems like a reasonable choice.

Joe Fan said:
4. They have a program to expand climate-smart agronomy. Again, it's pretty much just training and an anchor farm.
Click to expand...

The Clinton Foundation sets up an anchor farm to study climate-smart farming methods, and then trains farmers on those methods. That seems like a very good way to go about making change.

Joe Fan said:
5. They claim to reduce 33,500 tons of greenhouse gases in America through the HEAL program. It gives people loans, that's all.

6. There are the CGI Commitments to Action. Again, it's funding only.

7. And there's the Clinton Health Matters Initiative. It's fundraising and grants for health initiatives.

8. Of the $2,000,000,000 raised, not one dime appears to go to actual goods. All to consultants, fundraisers, etc.
Click to expand...

Many good things don't happen because well-meaning people can't afford to do those good things. Giving those people grants and/or loans is a tried and true method for getting those good things done. In fact, this is pretty much what it means to be a "foundation." The very purpose of all foundations is to raise money that can be funneled to other organizations or people so that those organizations or people can do good things.

Joe Fan said:
9. In each case, the Clinton Foundation exists as primarily a clearing house for other people's money.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You just gave a pretty good legal definition of the term "public charitable foundation".
 
With respect to the current candidates, I'd consider both VPs to be significant improvement
Click to expand...

But how boring is their debate going to be with talk of actual issues, civility and dry facts? After watching their debate, Americans are going to ask "where did my 2016 presidential election go?"
 
Joe Fan said:
Alan Smithee seems to do a pretty good job of unraveling what the Clinton Foundation does and does not do --

1. First, they do not get drugs for AIDS patients. This is a common fiction.

2. That's CHAI, and which is an independent organization.

3. They have a childhood obesity program. It essentially offers consulting to schools on the issue. That's all.

4. They have a program to expand climate-smart agronomy. Again, it's pretty much just training and an anchor farm.

5. They claim to reduce 33,500 tons of greenhouse gases in America through the HEAL program. It gives people loans, that's all.

6. There are the CGI Commitments to Action. Again, it's funding only.

7. And there's the Clinton Health Matters Initiative. It's fundraising and grants for health initiatives.

8. Of the $2,000,000,000 raised, not one dime appears to go to actual goods. All to consultants, fundraisers, etc..

9. In each case, the Clinton Foundation exists as primarily a clearing house for other people's money.

10. And they keep 90%. While they claim 88% goes to charity, that's only if they include CHAI. Which, again, is a separate organization.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of throwing **** against the wall and hoping something sticks. In the effort to make as many points as possible to overwhelm the reader many of these points could apply to most charity organizations, especially "foundations". Conservatives seem incapable of focusing their message on the heart of the problem when it comes to the Clintons. Focus on the pay for access. Criticizing the foundation for what good it does do or for what many (most) charities do is superfluous at best and displays nefarious intentions at worst.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's RIGGED!
Click to expand...
SH ... well, we have telling evidence this is precisely what happened to the democrat primary.

and it's not the first time. remember in '07, #HisSilentinBengHazi was the front runner in the DNC primary, by a LONG shot over an obscure 1st term Senator ... then the DNC claimed FL and MI erred in the rules, so their results were essentially tossed, which THEN gave that obscure politician the leg up. The rest is history.

... also ... it's fairly evident the open GOP primaries of staunch conservative states were "infiltrated" by democrat voters; they helped Trump get the most votes ever in a GOP primary. Oddly, those same primaries had (record) low democrat participation. Funny that.

But there's no cause to question our election system. Voter ID not required. RNC and DNC defining the November ballot is CLEARLY (/sarc) the right way to do it.
 
ShAArk92 said:
SH ... well, we have telling evidence this is precisely what happened to the democrat primary.

and it's not the first time. remember in '07, #HisSilentinBengHazi was the front runner in the DNC primary, by a LONG shot over an obscure 1st term Senator ... then the DNC claimed FL and MI erred in the rules, so their results were essentially tossed, which THEN gave that obscure politician the leg up. The rest is history.

... also ... it's fairly evident the open GOP primaries of staunch conservative states were "infiltrated" by democrat voters; they helped Trump get the most votes ever in a GOP primary. Oddly, those same primaries had record low democrat participation. Funny that.

But there's no cause to question our election system. Voter ID not required. RNC and DNC defining the November ballot is CLEARLY (/sarc) the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't debate the primary process being manipulated. It's a closed system with differentiated processes by each state. As Ted Cruz showed in LA and CO, a savvy politician can manipulate the system. HRC put her own people in at the DNC to use it as an extension of her campaign.

My facetious "it's rigged" comment was targeted towards emerging sentiment that the general election will be manipulated in favor of one party or one candidate through voter fraud. Trump and some posters on this board have already claimed voter fraud. To be sure, no evidence of systemic voter fraud had ever been exhibited through multipe investigations by media, state or federal organizations.

I do think there are other ways to influence an election, gerrymandered districts the most obvious.
 
Joe Fan said:
15. Take for example the International Youth Fund. They got $55,000,000 in grants from Clinton's state department.

16. The International Youth Fund counts among its board members - Douglas Baker. He gave $1-5M to the Foundation.

17. But Douglas Baker is also the chair of Laureate University, who paid Bill $16,500,000 for an honorary position over 5 years.

18. $1-5M to the foundation, $16.5M to Bill personally, nets you back $55,000,000 in taxpayer funded aid.
Click to expand...

This type of relationship is legitimately subject to question, but you make it waaaaay more than it really is.

Doug Becker (not "Baker") is the chairman of Laureate Education, Inc., which runs a network of private universities around the world. He sits on the board of many charities related to youth education. Most notably, he was the founding chairman of the Baltimore Children's Museum. He is also deeply devoted in the FIRST robotics-education program, which I know from first-hand experience is fabulous. This doesn't necessarily make Becker a good person, but it does show that he is a person who does some good things.

One of the many organizations that Becker is involved in is the International Youth Foundation (not "Fund"). Mr. Becker did not found the IYF and he does not run the IYF, but he has been a generous supporter of the organization over the years and they gave him a seat on the board. Typical rich-guy stuff.

The salary that Laureate paid to Bill Clinton is ugly. The claim from all involved is that he did work for the money, but I highly doubt Laureate got its money's worth in any respect other than access. Plus, Laureate's product itself seems pretty fishy.

On the other hand, the fact that Becker gave money to the Clinton Foundation seems innocent enough. Becker donates to lots of children's charities, and the Clinton Foundation supports some children's charities. Ho hum.

I don't know enough about the $55 million in US State Department aid to the IYF to comment, but this doesn't scream fraud to me. The IYF seems to be a legit charity, and might be deserving of the grant (thought again, I don't know enough to vouch for it). The fact that one of the IYF's 14 directors happens to be involved in some shady interaction with Bill Clinton doesn't say much (to me at least) about the legitimacy of that grant.

If the $55 million grant had gone to Laureate University -- now THAT would be a scandal.
 
Hillary has promised to make sure her presidency is "transparent" to prevent any concerns. Seems like we have heard that before, but it just validates what her defenders on this board argue for her and Slick.
 
theiioftx said:
Hillary has promised to make sure her presidency is "transparent" to prevent any concerns. Seems like we have heard that before, but it just validates what her defenders on this board argue for her and Slick.
Click to expand...

I agree. I roll my eyes every time Clinton promises transparency, because I know it isn't in her DNA. I have had the same concern about every president in my memory (since Reagan), but I think she is worse than most if not all of the others.

I also believe that the reason for her lack of transparency is that some of what Clinton does is suspicious, if not downright sleazy -- and more so than with most if not all of her predecessors.

That said, it is ridiculous to suggest that everything Clinton touches is crooked, and that the entire Clinton foundation is a money-laundering sham. The foundation takes in lots of money, and uses most of it to do lots of good things. Yes, the Clintons and their friends benefit by their association with the Foundation, but that doesn't make the organization a vast conspiracy destined to ruin the world.
 
Validates that she is not as crooked as people make her out to be and that things will change once she is voted into office by her excusers.
 
theiioftx said:
Validates that she is not as crooked as people make her out to be and that things will change once she is voted into office by her excusers.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that you are making her out to be MORE crooked than she is? The only defense of HRC anyone here has offered is when we go past the facts and into conspiracy and conjecture. As NJLonghorn states above, none of us believe that she'll be more transparent than she has in the past which means not at all as evidence by her email behavior and subsequent stonewalling of the investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top