Sunlight Foundation calls the Clinton FOundation nothing more than a slush fund

  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 28, 2015 5:46 PM GMT
    http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight_Foundation

    Screen-Shot-2015-04-27-at-3.14.34-PM.jpg

    http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

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

    Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.


    The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

    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.

    So go ahead, vote for another crook like Bush
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 28, 2015 8:12 PM GMT
    Well there you have it.

    a total of 77% of the money going to salary and "other"...

    only 10% for travel?
    How much do you want to bet they're not counting all the times they fly free courtesy of the people contributing to the Clinton Charitable Money Laundering Fund. Haven't you read that along with Hillary's or Bill's $250,000 minimum speaking fees they require a charter jet be thrown into the deal?

    And just 10% for actual charitable work?
    If any REAL charity operated like that the CEO and board would be sweating before a grand jury for corruption.

    But since it's the beloved Clintons... the blissful couple who've shown no honesty or integrity in over 30 years in politics... all their sheeple say, "So what?"
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 28, 2015 9:29 PM GMT
    I support Hillary, but 10% to actual charity is unacceptable. Most good charities give 70 to 90% to actual charity.

    This isn't good. She'll still get the Dem nod, but this will ding her with middle voters. No good deed goes unpunished. Politically, it's better to do NOTHING (like the selfish Bush family) than it is to try to do something good (like the Clintons) and fail.

    Thankfully, the Bush crew will only be able to push so much on this issue, because as you cast aspersions on THEIR charity, you necessarily implicate the fact that you don't even have a charity.

    This story has legs.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 28, 2015 11:10 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI support Hillary, but 10% to actual charity is unacceptable. Most good charities give 70 to 90% to actual charity.
    You're right one this.
    Any smart person checks out any charity before giving them one cent. For instance to help animals do you donate to The Humane Society of the United States or the United States Humane Society? The first one doesn't even run a single animal shelter and is a front for other groups. You see their ads on tv all the time.

    The best way to make sure your charity donations are used effectively is to avoid giving to the big ones and keep the money as local as possible where there are no CEOs with expense accounts, traveling expense accounts and office suites of 30th floors 1,200 miles away from you.


    [quote][cite]Svnw688 said[/cite] This isn't good. She'll still get the Dem nod, but this will ding her with middle voters

    I'd say that's a very accurate and objective assessment of the situation but then you have to editorialize... to rationalize your support for Hillary on a total lack of logic.

    Svnw688 said No good deed goes unpunished.
    Politically, it's better to do NOTHING (like the selfish Bush family) than it is to try to do something good (like the Clintons) and fail.

    You messed up with this. First off Trying to use the Bush family to make a distracting and lame moral equivalence needs was just that.. a lame distraction. The issue here is the Clintons and their charitable organizations, but that's not where you messed up.

    Explain how the Clintons could start, administer, control and take responsibility for their own charity organizations with intentions to "do something good and fail" ??? You are making a faulty assumption that the Clintons originally envisioned their charities to be something other than what the Clintons themselves made them! It's not as if there has ever been a time in which Bill or Hillary could not have fired any subordinate who was diverting funds intended for charities to give himself and other staff members enormous enormous raises and outrageous bonuses!! NO! The Clinton charities are EXACTLY what their founders intended to them to be!! How could Bill and Hillary have made their own organization to be something they didn't intend for them to become? Impossible!!

    Svnw688 saidThankfully, the Bush crew will only be able to push so much on this issue, because as you cast aspersions on THEIR charity, you necessarily implicate the fact that you don't even have a charity.
    This story has legs.

    Cast all the damned aspersions you want at the Bushes for anything you want but you are just doing your lame best to distract for the real issue. That issue is that the owners. operators and beneficiaries of a blatantly mismanaged and most likely corrupt web of charities have intentions of moving into the White House.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2015 1:28 AM GMT
    The Foundation is just one of many questionable parts of the Clinton history.

    12160_info_zpsldgzdjdc.jpg
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 29, 2015 4:35 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI support Hillary, but 10% to actual charity is unacceptable. Most good charities give 70 to 90% to actual charity.

    This isn't good. She'll still get the Dem nod, but this will ding her with middle voters. No good deed goes unpunished. Politically, it's better to do NOTHING (like the selfish Bush family) than it is to try to do something good (like the Clintons) and fail.

    Thankfully, the Bush crew will only be able to push so much on this issue, because as you cast aspersions on THEIR charity, you necessarily implicate the fact that you don't even have a charity.

    This story has legs.


    so you're good with a woman who runs a sham charity, really?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 29, 2015 1:15 PM GMT
    tj85016 said
    Svnw688 saidI support Hillary, but 10% to actual charity is unacceptable. Most good charities give 70 to 90% to actual charity.

    This isn't good. She'll still get the Dem nod, but this will ding her with middle voters. No good deed goes unpunished. Politically, it's better to do NOTHING (like the selfish Bush family) than it is to try to do something good (like the Clintons) and fail.

    Thankfully, the Bush crew will only be able to push so much on this issue, because as you cast aspersions on THEIR charity, you necessarily implicate the fact that you don't even have a charity.

    This story has legs.


    so you're good with a woman who runs a sham charity, really?


    It's real simple.tj85016.
    To support a politician with no integrity requires that you yourself have none.

    It makes perfect sense svnw would get a wet spot in his panties over a politician who personifies all the worst traits he himself exhibits. She's a congenital liar; so is he. She never gives proof for anything she accuses people of; neither does he. ... I could go on
    and on but you get the picture...
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Apr 29, 2015 1:20 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidI support Hillary, but 10% to actual charity is unacceptable. Most good charities give 70 to 90% to actual charity.

    This isn't good. She'll still get the Dem nod, but this will ding her with middle voters. No good deed goes unpunished. Politically, it's better to do NOTHING (like the selfish Bush family) than it is to try to do something good (like the Clintons) and fail.

    Thankfully, the Bush crew will only be able to push so much on this issue, because as you cast aspersions on THEIR charity, you necessarily implicate the fact that you don't even have a charity.

    This story has legs.
    You keep dreaming bunky about the hapless Hillary ho getting the democratic nod in 2016. The more the truth is exposed about this dishonest, backstabbing bitch the more her chances of going anywhere in the democratic primaries are diminished. You definitely need to start opening up your options for democratic candidates and forget about this bumbling bimbo.

    Will you please wake up and smell the coffee. Stop being such a brain dead idiot. Learn to think.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 29, 2015 3:54 PM GMT
    While her 'charity' is a serious issue, it's not a deal breaker or deathblow.

    Again, I'm not electing a Pope, but a President. I could really care less about her integrity issues as long as she (1) can get the job done and (2) advocates for and implements liberal/Democrat policies.

    I'm not exactly certain where the operative argument became "Hilly is dishonest, and therefore anyone who supports her is dishonest" argument came from (other than FreedomIsn'tFree and ArtDeco's back and forth), but if that's the M.O. for GOP operatives to dissuade or otherwise attempt to pull support from Hillary--you can keep fishing.

    I'm not selecting a sports hero for a child's wall, a Pope, or a best friend. I want a motherf-ing effective President that pushes policies that help the 99%. Hillary isn't Warren, but she's a heck of a lot better than union busting Walker, (King) Bush III, or any other sap the GOP is putting forth.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 29, 2015 4:36 PM GMT
    Here's Insult on top of injury for you....

    To compound the issue of only 10% of the funds of Clinton Charities being used on charitable projects, The Clinton Foundation has come out with on twitter saying they spend 88% of their funding on charitable projects.

    https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn/status/592047971631570944/photo/1

    BUT here's more on this...

    More at http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

    That's very different from the figures and chart from the NYT. It's a no brainer about whose figures to be inclined to believe...

    "Do I take the word of a newspaper that checks facts or do I want to believe this organization that has just been exposed for misrepresenting the donations they took in for the past five- ten or maybe even fifteen years according to their own spokesman???"

    If The Clinton Foundations was willing to misrepresent taking in taking in millions more than they wanted people to know about, it stands to reason they'd misrepresent how they've been spending money they like to pretend they don't have.


  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 29, 2015 5:27 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidWhile her 'charity' is a serious issue, it's not a deal breaker or deathblow.

    quote][cite]Svnw688 said[/cite]Again, I'm not electing a Pope, but a President. I could really care less about her integrity issues as long as she (1) can get the job done and (2) advocates for and implements liberal/Democrat policies.


    Yep. That's what I thought. You don't care how honest or transparent she is or anything like that?

    With her long standing record for dishonesty from her time working on the Watergate prosecution over 40 years ago up to today with the million dollar misrepresentations of the Clinton Charitable Fund and her ties as Secretary of State to the biggest donors to the fund... Have you ever stopped to wonder if people like you are the ones who she lies to the most? Afterall, people like you are the ones she has to get votes from to get into the White House. As unscrupulous as she's proven to be do you doubt she would look you in the face and lie to you simply to get your vote?

    You cannot say you would know the difference between a lie or the truth from her lips because she has destroyed her own integrity with lies.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 29, 2015 6:11 PM GMT
    Again, I feel like Bob3 and conservatives are focused exclusively on the 'person'.

    That's fine, if you want to focus on the person, so be it. But I'm not evaluating a child's babysitter, my future Pope, or the newest Ethics Department candidate at XYZ University. Almost all major politicians I can think of lie, and insofar that some lie more than others, I'm not going to play that game.

    I focus on what I believe matters, which are the Democratic policies Hillary advances. Nothing the GOP offers comes close. Would Warren be better? Of course, but it's not going to happen. So Hillary is who I'm voting for because she will advocate for and implement (by the stroke of her Presidential pen) minimum wage rights, anti-discrimination protections, fair/equal pay legislation, pro-union legislation, taxes against the 1%, voter protection rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, etc.

    The GOP is not only neutral on the above, but affirmatively against it. This smoke screen will fool no one. Now again, this Charity thing is bad, 10% is abysmal. And I don't countenance that and I want answers. But in the larger context of choosing the leader of the free world, it's merely red meat for conservatives who were NEVER going to vote for Hillary in the first place.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 29, 2015 7:59 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidAgain, I feel like Bob3 and conservatives are focused exclusively on the 'person'.

    That's a totally lame. I'm judging Hillary the same way I would look at a resume and a $40 background check on employees other than non-skilled workers; on their history for ethical behavior and past performance. I'm well aware all politicians lie to some extent and understand why some of them do it. Hillary on the other hand has lied and deceived solely for her (and Bill's) personal gain. Not only that she has a indisputable track record of wielding any power she possesses as a weapon as more against her (and Bill's) own personal enemies and threats than against political adversaries.

    Svnw688 said I focus on what I believe matters, which are the Democratic policies Hillary advances. Nothing the GOP offers comes close. Would Warren be better? Of course, but it's not going to happen. So Hillary is who I'm voting for because she will advocate for and implement (by the stroke of her Presidential pen) minimum wage rights, anti-discrimination protections, fair/equal pay legislation, pro-union legislation, taxes against the 1%, voter protection rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, etc.

    But you are being niäve in this. You cannot look at her past performance and see that she has ever followed through on any of the major things she has said she she would do. In her tenure as a senator she did essentially nothing regarding the things you've listed other than throwing meaningless verbiage around at the right times before people who want desperately to believe her. You're guilty of the same wishful thinking mentality with which fundamentalists flock to and support ministers running mega churches offering anything from prosperity gospel instant wealth to miraculous cures to an irrevocable free past into the wondrous nonexistent afterlife.

    Svnw688 saidThe GOP is not only neutral on the above, but affirmatively against it. This smoke screen will fool no one. Now again, this Charity thing is bad, 10% is abysmal. And I don't countenance that and I want answers. But in the larger context of choosing the leader of the free world, it's merely red meat for conservatives who were NEVER going to vote for Hillary in the first place.


    The "charity thing" is only getting deeper, wider and more enormous by the day.

    1100 donors went through a Canadian charity affiliated with the Clinton charities in order to ostensibly attempt to avoid having to be listed as required in the US. "The co-founder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate is revealing new details about the charity's donors in an effort to counter allegations in the New York Times and the new book “Clinton Cash"

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

    At the same time the New York Times released figures showing the Clinton Charities only spend 10% on charitable endeavors... the Clinton Charities went on twitter to post a chart ostensibly to prove they spend 88% on charities.

    see this first to see the twitter
    https://twitter.com/ClintonFdn/status/592047971631570944/photo/1
    and here's the story.
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

    Believe it or not, I see an upside to Hillary's attempt to get into the White House as this scandal goes metastasizes for her and Bill's inevitable ruin. They will very possibly serve a greater good in their own destruction than they could ever hope to do with 4 or 8 years in the White House.

    I already see the beginnings of complete disgust with the type of self enriching politics the Clintons represent as it taints the independent middle voters against them.

    The first credible candidate of either party with a clean record to speak out with sincerity about sweeping reforms and restrictions on the types of corruption and abuse that the Clintons have personified will most likely win the election of 2016 and IF he follows through on that commitment to the voters, he'll win again in 2020.

    Everyone in the US will win except the Clintons and the people like them.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 29, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    The first credible candidate of either party with a clean record to speak out with sincerity about sweeping reforms and restrictions on the types of corruption and abuse that the Clintons have personified will most likely win the election of 2016 and IF he follows through on that commitment to the voters, he'll win again in 2020.

    Everyone in the US will win except the Clintons and the people like them.

    Your political naivete is astonishing.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Apr 29, 2015 10:14 PM GMT
    ^^

    that's right, Americans only like crooked assholes for President now, sorta like Italy
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Apr 29, 2015 11:46 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidAgain, I feel like Bob3 and conservatives are focused exclusively on the 'person'.

    That's fine, if you want to focus on the person, so be it. But I'm not evaluating a child's babysitter, my future Pope, or the newest Ethics Department candidate at XYZ University. Almost all major politicians I can think of lie, and insofar that some lie more than others, I'm not going to play that game.

    I focus on what I believe matters, which are the Democratic policies Hillary advances. Nothing the GOP offers comes close. Would Warren be better? Of course, but it's not going to happen. So Hillary is who I'm voting for because she will advocate for and implement (by the stroke of her Presidential pen) minimum wage rights, anti-discrimination protections, fair/equal pay legislation, pro-union legislation, taxes against the 1%, voter protection rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, etc.

    The GOP is not only neutral on the above, but affirmatively against it. This smoke screen will fool no one. Now again, this Charity thing is bad, 10% is abysmal. And I don't countenance that and I want answers. But in the larger context of choosing the leader of the free world, it's merely red meat for conservatives who were NEVER going to vote for Hillary in the first place.
    The only so called democratic policies that crooked, power hungry whore is advocating is the pursuit of her own self aggrandizement. She has absolutely no leadership ability. All her so called past accomplishments were total flops. She just uses people for her own advantage and than dumps them and stabs them in the back. This woman has no damn business running for President because she is untrustworthy and she has zero qualifications for the job. But your stupid, retarded ass still wants this hapless ho for President. You are definitely one blind and brain dead motherfucker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2015 12:11 AM GMT
    bobbobbob saidWith her long standing record for dishonesty from her time working on the Watergate prosecution over 40 years ago up to today with the million dollar misrepresentations of the Clinton Charitable Fund and her ties as Secretary of State to the biggest donors to the fund...

    ...You cannot say you would know the difference between a lie or the truth from her lips because she has destroyed her own integrity with lies.

    When someone is fundamentally dishonest as Hillary, it really doesn't matter what they say their positions are today, because they can't be trusted to maintain those positions and act on them.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Apr 30, 2015 12:23 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob saidWith her long standing record for dishonesty from her time working on the Watergate prosecution over 40 years ago up to today with the million dollar misrepresentations of the Clinton Charitable Fund and her ties as Secretary of State to the biggest donors to the fund...

    ...You cannot say you would know the difference between a lie or the truth from her lips because she has destroyed her own integrity with lies.

    When someone is fundamentally dishonest as Hillary, it really doesn't matter what they say their positions are today, because they can't be trusted to maintain those positions and act on them.
    Thank you, +200,000
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 30, 2015 12:49 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    bobbobbob saidWith her long standing record for dishonesty from her time working on the Watergate prosecution over 40 years ago up to today with the million dollar misrepresentations of the Clinton Charitable Fund and her ties as Secretary of State to the biggest donors to the fund...

    ...You cannot say you would know the difference between a lie or the truth from her lips because she has destroyed her own integrity with lies.

    When someone is fundamentally dishonest as Hillary, it really doesn't matter what they say their positions are today, because they can't be trusted to maintain those positions and act on them.


    Thank you Mr. Socal! And furthermore, certified congenital liars like Hillary depend on those people who are niäve enough to believe anything because they want desperately to believe it. And... as a person without any trace of integrity Hillary has zero compunctions about saying anything she needs to say to get her ass out of a bind, cover up for her shifty deals or get her ass into the White House.

    I caught part of the speech she gave today on overhauling the criminal justice system and thought, "there she goes promising something she cannot possibly deliver.'... and then she had to go where she shouldn't have ever gone... I couldn't help but laugh... Hillary Clinton had the conscienceless gall to say "we need to replenish our “depleted reservoirs of trust.”

    What lying sack of runny cat shit was really saying was "Please believe me!!!"


  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 30, 2015 1:04 AM GMT
    ^I'd rather trust a "liar" that says they now back gay rights, than I would an "honest" person who ADMITS I'm a second class citizen as a gay man.

    GOP? NEVER!
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2936

    Apr 30, 2015 1:09 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidWhile her 'charity' is a serious issue, it's not a deal breaker or deathblow.

    Again, I'm not electing a Pope, but a President. I could really care less about her integrity issues as long as she (1) can get the job done and (2) advocates for and implements liberal/Democrat policies.

    I'm not exactly certain where the operative argument became "Hilly is dishonest, and therefore anyone who supports her is dishonest" argument came from (other than FreedomIsn'tFree and ArtDeco's back and forth), but if that's the M.O. for GOP operatives to dissuade or otherwise attempt to pull support from Hillary--you can keep fishing.

    I'm not selecting a sports hero for a child's wall, a Pope, or a best friend. I want a motherf-ing effective President that pushes policies that help the 99%. Hillary isn't Warren, but she's a heck of a lot better than union busting Walker, (King) Bush III, or any other sap the GOP is putting forth.


    I'm distressed about this. But anyone who thinks we wouldn't be better off with Hillary than with anyone the GOP comes up with is delusional.

    Bernie Sanders, anyone?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 30, 2015 1:13 AM GMT
    ^^Agreed. And while I think Hillary has it on lock down, I'd support Senator Sanders. His Nov. 30, 2010 Senate floor speech was absolutely epic, and is just as true (if not TRUER) today. A must watch.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsDYAtKlsT4
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Apr 30, 2015 1:17 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said^I'd rather trust a "liar" that says they now back gay rights, than I would an "honest" person who ADMITS I'm a second class citizen as a gay man.

    GOP? NEVER!
    You are an idiot who needs to be prohibited from voting in 2016 for the sake of our great country's future.

    GOP YES, HAPLESS HILLARY HO ABSOLUTELY NO.

    Get off your single issue nonsense of being second class as a gay man. That is of no importance in this election. Honesty is always important. You just compromised your integrity.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 30, 2015 1:53 AM GMT
    ^^Anybody who knows a scintilla about my posting can tell I'm NOT a single issue voter, some of the issues I've spoken out about are:

    LGBT rights (marriage, ENDA, adoption)
    Women's reproductive rights
    Fair pay for women
    A non-interventionist/preemptive 'war' policy
    A national FAIR minimum wage (i.e., increase it)
    Universal Healthcare (Obamacare now, single payer soon)
    Amnesty for illegals, securing borders, deporting criminals
    Environmental protection (EPAgency, CWA, CAA, etc.)
    Liberal SCOTUS nominees to balance the Court
    Pro middle class worker (e.g., anti TPP deal)

    And that's just a smathering, but yes, please keep caricaturing me if that makes you feel better. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story RoadBikeRob.