The Clinton Foundation Is Not a Scandal. It’s a Phenomenal, Life-Saving Success.

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

    Aug 26, 2016 11:52 PM GMT
    The Clinton Foundation runs one of the most phenomenally successful AIDS relief programs of all time, and AIDS relief is simply not on most straight people’s [or Trump trolls'] radars. But let me provide a bit more background about the foundation’s work to provide a more complete picture of this purported “slush fund.”

    Through his foundation, Clinton launched AIDS initiatives in more than two dozen developing countries, placing nurses in rural clinics, training hospital managers, purchasing drugs, and negotiating huge price cuts for critical AIDS medications.

    How did the Clinton Foundation pull off this miracle? By doing what myriad successful charities do: Taking large sums of money from wealthy people and regimes and redistributing it to poor people. Yes, some of these people have an awful track record on human rights. But if American charities did not take money from some very bad people, there would be remarkably few American charities operating at all.


    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/25/clinton_foundation_scandal_aids_relief_work_is_a_success.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2016 1:27 PM GMT
    I guess President George W. Bush is now a Liberal Democrat. President Bush's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR/Emergency Plan) is a United States governmental initiative to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and help save the lives of those suffering from the disease, primarily in Africa:

    https://2006-2009.pepfar.gov

    So Liberals think it's OK to STONE GAYS TO DEATH in exchange for treating homophobic heterosexuals who won't practice safe sex.

    Kind of like Obamacare which takes money from Medicare patient's treatment and gives it to younger "indestructibles" who previously refused to pay their own way and buy insurance.

    Bill Clinton has pledged to take no more foreign contributions to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation once Hillary is President. So by voting for Hillary, there won't be any more money to do all these "Life-Saving" Successes. A vote for Hillary is a vote to kill someone else.
  • dreamcock

    Posts: 423

    Aug 27, 2016 2:31 PM GMT
    Only 10% goes for charitable causes the rest is to enrich the Clintons. Chelsea made 3 million last year and what does she do for a living, oh that's right she works for the Clinton Foundation and this is charity?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Aug 27, 2016 2:56 PM GMT
    The Clinton Foundation is nothing more than a glorified money laundering, drug trafficking operation wholly disguised as a charitable organization. It hasn't improved or saved any lives or made things any better for any disadvantaged groups. It instead has profited very handsomely off other peoples suffering while doing little to nothing to alleviate that suffering. icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2016 3:44 PM GMT
    https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478RATING: A


    charity_watch_logo.png

    https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-criteria-methodology/478#ratingCharityWatch analysts perform in-depth evaluations of complex charity financial reporting, including audited financial statements, tax forms, annual reports, state filings, and other documents. Once our analysis of a charity is complete, and any required adjustments are made, we perform two end calculations, then assign the charity a letter grade efficiency rating on an A+ to F scale. The results of these end calculations include:

    This charity is Top-Rated.

    CW_TopRated_RGB_WEB_120px.png


    Program % reflects the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed. For example, a Program % of 80% means that the charity spent 80% of its expenses on charitable programs. The remaining 20% was spent on overhead, which includes fundraising, and management & general.

    Cost to Raise $100 reflects how much it cost the charity to bring in each $100 of cash donations from the public in the year analyzed. For example, a Cost to Raise $100 of $20 means that the charity spent $20 on fundraising for each $100 of cash donations it received....

    A range = Excellent
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2016 4:09 PM GMT
    dreamcock saidOnly 10% goes for charitable causes the rest is to enrich the Clintons.

    ^Bullshit^

    http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/clinton-foundation-health-work/...CharityWatch, gives the organization a solid “A.” The group says that the foundation spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead)...
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 802

    Aug 27, 2016 9:40 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said...It instead has profited very handsomely off other peoples suffering while doing little to nothing to alleviate that suffering.

    Sounds like most charities and not-for-profits.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 27, 2016 10:00 PM GMT
    FitBlackCuddler saidroadbikeRob said...It instead has profited very handsomely off other peoples suffering while doing little to nothing to alleviate that suffering.

    Sounds like most charities and not-for-profits.


    Cynical, how much? I donate to four charities who do a great deal of good and have trouble keeping the doors open because they give so much to the people who need it. If you want to donate, investigate the charity - there are a lot of good ones out there who struggle to survive and need the help.

    Two charities I know - a friend is one of the people running one of them - say that they need donations to the "running fund" simply because so much goes to the needy. The people I know who work for charities make less than teachers. One good rule is to stick to local charities, and avoid a lot of the big national ones with expensive ads, and such.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2016 10:20 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478RATING: A


    charity_watch_logo.png

    https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-criteria-methodology/478#ratingCharityWatch analysts perform in-depth evaluations of complex charity financial reporting, including audited financial statements, tax forms, annual reports, state filings, and other documents. Once our analysis of a charity is complete, and any required adjustments are made, we perform two end calculations, then assign the charity a letter grade efficiency rating on an A+ to F scale. The results of these end calculations include:

    This charity is Top-Rated.

    CW_TopRated_RGB_WEB_120px.png


    Program % reflects the percent of total expenses a charity spent on its programs in the year analyzed. For example, a Program % of 80% means that the charity spent 80% of its expenses on charitable programs. The remaining 20% was spent on overhead, which includes fundraising, and management & general.

    Cost to Raise $100 reflects how much it cost the charity to bring in each $100 of cash donations from the public in the year analyzed. For example, a Cost to Raise $100 of $20 means that the charity spent $20 on fundraising for each $100 of cash donations it received....

    A range = Excellent


    Who should we believe, Charity Watch or RJ's Trump trolls? Now let me see...
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 27, 2016 10:35 PM GMT


    Who should we believe, Charity Watch or RJ's Trump trolls? Now let me see...[/quote]

    Gosh, that's a tough one!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2016 10:59 PM GMT
    The Clinton MO is to tell everyone exactly want they want to hear. Why not, lies are free.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2016 11:02 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidWho should we believe, Charity Watch or RJ's Trump trolls? Now let me see...


    If I recall that 10% number was the horseshit of that HP candidate in the Republican primary who hid in her false charge that the charity does much of its own field work. It's not just a clearinghouse to collect and send off money but to do the actual business of helping.

    Not with regard to this but with perceptions of improprieties, to be fair, that could be misconstrued simply because of the organization's structure which seems smart but also problematic because it's arranged to gather and bring to bear the powers of government, the infrastructure of business and the resources of donors to focus all that on problem solving. What about that is not smart? But what about that doesn't have the "optics" of overlap as overlapping is its nature.

    So it's a real interesting model of charity work. And what better person to accomplish this than an ex-president with so many contacts and so many who'd want to involve themselves with that. But then how to judge potential improprieties by the overlapping nature. It looks to me that the Clintons have tried to be real careful about that. But it does seem by its nature a line tough to draw without a smudge. Which doesn't mean that you can't wind up with a beautifully defined charcoal.
    robert-longo-12%25255B1%25255D.jpg?imgma
  • NealJohn

    Posts: 184

    Aug 28, 2016 2:00 PM GMT
    Smoke and mirrors. If I run a business to launder money I'm going to have legit transactions to mask my activities. Don't be so niece, the Clintons are thieves and liars. Trump 2016
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 4:32 PM GMT
    Wake up. Huffington Post, Washington Post, USA Today, NewYorker, Boston Globe, Slate, Daily Beast are calling for it to be shut down.

    Why? Ryan Grim from HuffPo was hilarious. Think of the Oligarchs. Where will they go? Lmao...
    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/767811188117925889

  • REBEL_YELL

    Posts: 34

    Aug 29, 2016 10:22 AM GMT
    It was never intended to be a charity, it was started to raise money for the Bill Clinton presidential library, then they realized they could misappropriate the donations and use them on themselves, from there it became nothing more than a slush for all that donate and to buy themselves palatial estates... Less than 10% goes to helping anyone else...check your facts and stop listening to the media
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2016 10:43 AM GMT
    REBEL_YELL saidIt was never intended to be a charity, it was started to raise money for the Bill Clinton presidential library, then they realized they could misappropriate the donations and use them on themselves, from there it became nothing more than a slush for all that donate and to buy themselves palatial estates... Less than 10% goes to helping anyone else...check your facts and stop listening to the media


    Charity Watch isn't "the media" though, is it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2016 10:16 PM GMT

    ELECTIONS
    DNC Chair Tries To Defend Clinton Foundation — Admits To HUGE Political Impropriety [VIDEO]

    Donna Brazile defended the Clinton Foundation during a Sunday morning interview on ABC, but in the process of doing so, the interim DNC chair actually confirmed the existence of a pay-for-play relationship between the Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/dnc-chair-tries-to-defend-clinton-foundation-admits-to-huge-political-impropriety-video/#ixzz4IlJZsdL7