The First 100 days

Mr. Deez said:
...For example, I think the "women's march" got about 10,000 people. Well, you can find 10,000 pissed off liberal women in a few blocks of DC. That's a ****** turnout. Frankly, they should be laughed at and humiliated with a turnout that low. If conservatives rally in DC, they're coming from all over the United States. If you get 100,000 for a March for Life, that's the equivalent of getting about 800,000 liberals to rally in DC.
Click to expand...

Some of their exhibits and posters were pretty remarkable too. Kind of stuff you do not easily forget.
 
19 year high in economy ratings from voters
55% positive is the highest since Jan 2001
fox-news-poll-1.png

Fox News Poll January 19-22, 2020
 
I was just thinking about our last two Republican candidates in 2008 & 2012

McCain and Romney. :whiteflag: Look how much respect the Republican voters lost for who these two. Makes me appreciate what Trump has done. These last two would have bowed to the fake media.
 
Monahorns said:
I would be happy if the Fed targeted a -1% inflation rate. I would be almost happy with a 0% target.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want deflation for the same reason I don't want inflation. It screws with the credit system. Obviously inflation screws with creditors, but deflation screws with debtors. I would rather leave both of them alone and have no inflation.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I wouldn't want deflation for the same reason I don't want inflation. It screws with the credit system. Obviously inflation screws with creditors, but deflation screws with debtors. I would rather leave both of them alone and have no inflation.
Click to expand...
Did you know all the gold in the world (which is basically all the gold found and refined throughout history save for what is lost in sunken boats) can fill 4 Olympic sized pools ?
 
4th_floor said:
In 2014, expenses exceeded 51% of donations. About 3% of donations were granted to legitimate charities. The foundation claims that most money is used for charitable purposes.........Yeah, right.

How much does the Clinton Foundation really donate to charity?

I partially agree that most successful politicians are corrupt and will never be prosecuted. I still consider their behavior as criminal. Any charity that uses more than 50% of donations as "expenses" is a fraud.
Click to expand...

This is the same charge as what many have lodged against the Clinton Foundation for years, and was the basis for the thread on HornFans between @Joe Fan and myself back in 2017. IT ignores the fact that the Clinton Foundation is an operating charity, not a pass-through foundation.

If it was a pass-through, most of the foundation's revenue would be passed out to other charities. And if the expenses were high, it would likely indicate a fraud.

But the Clinton Foundation doesn't operate on that business model. Instead, it operates as an operating charity, spending money around the world for charitable purposes. This link provides a pretty good summary of what charity work they perform, and thus where they spend their money.
 
NJlonghorn said:
This is the same charge as what many have lodged against the Clinton Foundation for years, and was the basis for the thread on HornFans between @Joe Fan and myself back in 2017. IT ignores the fact that the Clinton Foundation is an operating charity, not a pass-through foundation.

If it was a pass-through, most of the foundation's revenue would be passed out to other charities. And if the expenses were high, it would likely indicate a fraud.

But the Clinton Foundation doesn't operate on that business model. Instead, it operates as an operating charity, spending money around the world for charitable purposes. This link provides a pretty good summary of what charity work they perform, and thus where they spend their money.
Click to expand...

You are certainly something of a unicorn. It makes me wonder what we could get for you on eBay?
 
Lol, I'm sure I could be had for a song.

In any event, I'm not completely alone. Charity Watch still gives the Clinton Foundation an A- rating. Charity Navigator rates the Clinton Foundation as 3 stars out of 4, but their "Transparency and Accountability" rating is 4 stars.

Look, I get it. Saying that the Clinton Foundation is shady but not altogether corrupt flies in the face of Hornfans orthodoxy. Anyone who fails to condemn everything connected to Hillary, with no redeeming considerations, is a liberal extremist who deserves ridicule. This is just one example of why I stopped coming here, and I'm not sure why I keep checking in on this thread.
 
I wouldn't want deflation for the same reason I don't want inflation. It screws with the credit system. Obviously inflation screws with creditors, but deflation screws with debtors. I would rather leave both of them alone and have no inflation.
Click to expand...

With no Fed and a commodity standard there would be price deflation but slow money supply growth. Price deflation means we all get richer without making a penny more. It happens anyway, but it would be more wide spread without printing dollars like we do today.
 
Did you know all the gold in the world (which is basically all the gold found and refined throughout history save for what is lost in sunken boats) can fill 4 Olympic sized pools ?
Click to expand...

That is one reason why it was such a good currency.
 
NJlonghorn said:
This is the same charge as what many have lodged against the Clinton Foundation for years, and was the basis for the thread on HornFans between @Joe Fan and myself back in 2017. IT ignores the fact that the Clinton Foundation is an operating charity, not a pass-through foundation.

If it was a pass-through, most of the foundation's revenue would be passed out to other charities. And if the expenses were high, it would likely indicate a fraud.

But the Clinton Foundation doesn't operate on that business model. Instead, it operates as an operating charity, spending money around the world for charitable purposes. This link provides a pretty good summary of what charity work they perform, and thus where they spend their money.
Click to expand...
Part of the money is used to maintain the Clintons' personal residence at the top of the Clinton Library. This residence is rarely used by the Clintons or anyone else. Not acceptable as a charitable use.

Part of the money is used to fund travel and expenses of the Clintons, regardless of whether they are working on foundation business.

Chelsea Clinton worked for the foundation after her graduation and made a nice salary, although it wouldn't impress Hunter Biden. I find this inappropriate as well.

I'm not sure what kind of charitable work they actually did. I remember they made a lot of noise about helping in Haiti. There were a lot of talk about a scandal in Haiti regarding the CF. I would look up the details, but you would deny it anyway.
 
4th_floor said:
Part of the money is used to maintain the Clintons' personal residence at the top of the Clinton Library. This residence is rarely used by the Clintons or anyone else. Not acceptable as a charitable use.
Click to expand...
This is something I've never heard about. I poked around briefly on Google, and it seems to be true that there is a private residence for the Clintons on top of the Clinton library (and similar residences for Carter and Bush 41 at their presidential libraries). This seems inappropriate to me, but I haven't found anything saying whether the construction and/or maintenance were funded by the Clinton Foundation. I did find that the Clinton Foundation has a regional office at the library too -- not sure if this is part of the private suite, or a separate office.


4th_floor said:
Part of the money is used to fund travel and expenses of the Clintons....
Click to expand...
True.

4th_floor said:
. . . regardless of whether they are working on foundation business.
Click to expand...
I've heard this allegation before, but I've never seen it backed up.

4th_floor said:
Chelsea Clinton worked for the foundation after her graduation and made a nice salary, although it wouldn't impress Hunter Biden. I find this inappropriate as well.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that Chelsea has never drawn a salary from the Clinton Foundation. She has earned questionable income from a few sources, including NBC and a couple of corporate boards, but not from the Foundation.

4th_floor said:
I'm not sure what kind of charitable work they actually did. I remember they made a lot of noise about helping in Haiti. There were a lot of talk about a scandal in Haiti regarding the CF. I would look up the details, but you would deny it anyway.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti was a colossal failure. That doesn't make the organization a fraud. It does cast doubt on the liberal, do-good philosophy underpinning the foundation, but that's a different point.
 
NJlonghorn said:
...Look, I get it. Saying that the Clinton Foundation is shady but not altogether corrupt flies in the face of Hornfans orthodoxy. Anyone who fails to condemn everything connected to Hillary, with no redeeming considerations, is a liberal extremist who deserves ridicule. This is just one example of why I stopped coming here, and I'm not sure why I keep checking in on this thread.
Click to expand...

Disagree. People get to say whatever they want in here. What passes for "the political right" in here hardly ever agrees 100%, on anything. And the only censorship from management we see is when someone goes over the top with racism or x-rated language. Other than that, you can pretty much type what you want. No one is stopping you.

I have, of course, personally been the recipient of multiple attempts of censorship and even outright banning. All from your side, of course. But, so far at least, you good folks have been unsuccessful at that. And, for the record, I have never originated any similar attempt of my own going the other direction. The primary reason for that is that I dont really care what you guys say. Plus, I enjoy a good argument. And I am convinced the main reason you (and others like you) run away is because you cannot stand up to a presentation of facts from outside your own echo chamber. You always go back to where everyone thinks the same and where everyone avoids the same inconvenient facts. It's a make-believe world. I suppose it is easier and safer, but isnt it boring when everyone agrees? When everyone wakes up every day waiting to told what new thing to be offended by? Ugh. My guess is when you do come back from one of your Odessies, it is because you were getting bored with the banality of your own people (tell me I am wrong). Lastly, your safe-place liberal-echo chambers will not last forever. Internal conflict in this type of environment is always inevitable. They always turn into circular firing squads. History is full of real life examples -- one of my favorites is how the Bolsheviks turned on the Jews in Russia, which was also always inevitable. (for this story, I recommend Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center — Two Hundred Years Together ).

As to the Clintons specifically, now that the possibility of Hillary ever actually becoming President has passed (or, at least I think it's passed), most Democrats have come to grips with what and who the Clintons are, were and have always been. Supporters were always willing to look past their bad behavior as long as they otherwise got what they wanted. Bill could rape and assault women as long as he was firmly pro-abortion. Which he always was (lol, what a life). This is THE STORY of modern Democrat politics. It's a series of Faustian negotiations. You are one of the few holdouts, a true believer in the Clintons. Which is OK, it's your call. But you cant expect to waltz into a place like this and not get knocked around for being so naive.
 
Israel didn't accept the 1949 proposal did it? Neither will accept Trump's new proposal. Both organizations want it all.
 
Both sides have rejected most of the proposals. Pre-WW2, Palestine rejected every one and Israel accepted them but Israel had no power and no legal right to land. Then after WW2 Israel started rejecting proposals after they took over land and had leverage. I can't talk to specifics but I know that Palestine wanted proposals soon after WW2 but might have rejected specific offers because at that time, like now, they are at a disadvantage politically and militarily.

At this point Israel isn't going to accept anything that means giving land away. And any agreement from them will have to be watched closely because even now they are starting settlements outside of land that they have legal right to be in. That means Palestine will not agree to anything that doesn't make Israel stop and give that land back. It is theirs legally to begin with.

It is a mess on both sides. Both sides are guilty of violence.
 
Monahorns said:
Both sides have rejected most of the proposals. Pre-WW2, Palestine rejected every one and Israel accepted them but Israel had no power and no legal right to land. Then after WW2 Israel started rejecting proposals after they took over land and had leverage. I can't talk to specifics but I know that Palestine wanted proposals soon after WW2 but might have rejected specific offers because at that time, like now, they are at a disadvantage politically and militarily.

At this point Israel isn't going to accept anything that means giving land away. And any agreement from them will have to be watched closely because even now they are starting settlements outside of land that they have legal right to be in. That means Palestine will not agree to anything that doesn't make Israel stop and give that land back. It is theirs legally to begin with.

It is a mess on both sides. Both sides are guilty of violence.
Click to expand...

Iran has already come out against Trump's proposal
They want the Palestinians to have the Golan so they can more easily lob missiles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top