Forum Thread

Hillary's foundation mess

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 68 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Now more than another 15000 e-mails are recovered ( I write may be only a couple a day) I'm amazed that 'they" keep coming.

    Also the "tie-in" with the Clinton Foundation and possible "favors" as well the scrambling of the Clinton's to do damage control, makes things even worse. Hillary said she will stop accepting "donations" from foreign entities at the moment she becomes president. ( in other words foreign entities who want "favors' now and beyond can still contribute as usual until such time). On top of that, Bill said that he will leave the organisation at the moment his wife becomes president.

    In the meantime Trump screams that they should abandon this whole organization "now". I think the Clinton's painted themselves into a corner; with these silly statements.

    If she does not resolve this right now, then it will cost her dearly and Trump may still be winning in an tight race.

    Anyway the ridiculous cost of this election and these two unsuited candidates makes the whole outside world wonder what kind of country the US actually is. (may be corrupt?)

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is an Democratic site; this is an Democratic issue; but why does not anyone wants to reply or discuss it? Heads in the sand? Sorry I see this as an serious "not trust worthy" issue about the Clinton's and could impact her election.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: This is an Democratic site; this is an Democratic issue; but why does not anyone wants to reply or discuss it? Heads in the sand? Sorry I see this as an serious "not trust worthy" issue about the Clinton's and could impact her election.

    I don't really see it as an issue at all.

    Former President Bill Clinton has a philanthropic foundation. It gives money to some of the poorest countries in the world in an attempt to make their lives better. Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail address during her time in office. Every single politician uses a private e-mail address. That's why no one cared about it until the Republicans decided to make it a manufactured scandal.

    Fox "News" might run with this for a few days, but I have a feeling the vast majority of people just don't care.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: This is an Democratic site; this is an Democratic issue; but why does not anyone wants to reply or discuss it? Heads in the sand? Sorry I see this as an serious "not trust worthy" issue about the Clinton's and could impact her election.
    Dutch, I don't know that I ever have been in dissagreement with anything you have said. I am in total agreement but don't have anything constructive to ad at this point. My awareness since 1994 is that Clinton had ambitions greater than the welfare of the USA. I paraphrased it as he wanted to be President of the World. Everything they have done has been a coordinated constructive effort toward an international position. Their representative has just cast an aspersion of directed neglect towards people wanting to question, curtail or in any other way "hamper" the Clinton Foundation.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree with jared. E mails, SO WHAT. Republicans have tried so hard to pin something negative on her because they are scared that she'll win. Recently they've attempted to say that she is going to die from brain tumors, dementia, or something..... news flash ! we're all going to die from something. They will keep throwing crap against the wall and wait for something to stick. They've become pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: This is an Democratic site; this is an Democratic issue; but why does not anyone wants to reply or discuss it? Heads in the sand? Sorry I see this as an serious "not trust worthy" issue about the Clinton's and could impact her election.

    I don't really see it as an issue at all.

    Former President Bill Clinton has a philanthropic foundation. It gives money to some of the poorest countries in the world in an attempt to make their lives better. Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail address during her time in office. Every single politician uses a private e-mail address. That's why no one cared about it until the Republicans decided to make it a manufactured scandal.

    Fox "News" might run with this for a few days, but I have a feeling the vast majority of people just don't care.

    Of course I expected that answer from you. Thus in other words any government person can go on being corrupt and loves our "lobby" system. Ask the NRA and pharma industry. For instance our FL governor got elected by means of lots of money from our polluters so they can continue polluting without restrictions. T.J. should know that. It is not only the Clinton's, but this whole country is corrupt even the doctors and hospitals. Thus Jared keep promoting this; it works for both Trump as well Clinton. Why is this the only country on earth where half a billion is spent just elect "one" person?; elections are only honest if there is no money (or very little money involved for predetermined approved amounts) is involved.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Clinton Foundation Facts

    What I hate is that the media is treating the Clinton Foundation like it is some kind of gravy train for the Clintons. They never mention the charitable work that the foundation does. Furthermore, the Foundation publishes quarterly its list of donors:

    "We are proud to have more than 300,000 contributors; 90% of our donations are $100 or less. Like all philanthropic organizations, the Foundation depends on contributions to pursue our work around the world. While not required by any law, but in keeping with a long-held commitment to transparency, the Clinton Foundation has for years listed all contributors dating back to the Foundation’s beginning on our website."

    This transparency has allowed media and Republicans to comb through the list of 300,000 contributors and cherry pick a few that might look suspicious. On the other hand if you want to know anything about Donald Trump's financial dealings and charitable contributions (what few there are), you just have to take the Donald's word for it: "Believe Me!"

    Oh and if you are interested in what the Foundation does with the donations, read this:

    "Because of our work, more than 31,000 American schools are providing kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 105,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; more than 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced annually across the United States; over 450,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, over 11.5 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; an estimated 85 million people in the U.S. will be reached through strategic health partnerships developed across industry sectors at both the local and national level; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made more than 3,500 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries."

    Politicians are screaming, "shut it down, shut it down!" I ask why?

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    So the Associated Press has combed through all 300,000 donors and cross checked the list against anyone who ever met with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. They found 84 names of people who had met with Hillary (also a part of her transparency) and who had also made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation. But there was no evidence of quid pro quo, that is no special favors given as a result of those donations. A meeting is not a special favor. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had meetings with thousands of people all over the globe. Some of them happened to make a donation to a worthy charitable cause.

    Donald Trump is screaming the loudest.

    No one mentions the remarkable work that the Clinton Foundation does.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There are neutral groups who evaluate and rate charitable groups. They grade the charities, list percentages of funds that go towards fixing the target problems, and discuss the management of funds. Guess what......The Clinton foundation gets high grades - an A I believe I recall - and nearly 90% of funds go to the need or problem. Yesterday there was a story comparing the Clinton charity and the Trump charity. Trumps spending goes towards throwing parties or events. Give aways are usually rounds of golf at one of his courses.

    The Clintons give about a million dollars per year to their foundation. Guess what DT contributes. Yes you would be correct.

    Mr. Chet will disagree because he hates that family with a passion.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    There are neutral groups who evaluate and rate charitable groups. They grade the charities, list percentages of funds that go towards fixing the target problems, and discuss the management of funds. Guess what......The Clinton foundation gets high grades - an A I believe I recall - and nearly 90% of funds go to the need or problem. Yesterday there was a story comparing the Clinton charity and the Trump charity. Trumps spending goes towards throwing parties or events. Give aways are usually rounds of golf at one of his courses.

    The Clintons give about a million dollars per year to their foundation. Guess what DT contributes. Yes you would be correct.

    Mr. Chet will disagree because he hates that family with a passion.

    Clinton Foundation helps 31000 schools fight childhood obesity. Childhood obesity for school age kids is on the rise. Instead of spreading money thinly to reach as many acknowledgements as possible why not pick one problem and fix it. The Clinton Foundation is more of a credential campaign. That is my problem with the Clinton and most foundations. Pomp and circumstance are above accompishments.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    T.J. an Schmidt; good answers. Sure I support charity. However with a certain "position" and "contacts" it is asking for these questions. A question I have is; why "foreign" donations? If then the charity is applied to such foreign nation, I can understand that. Also I question what is in it for the Clinton's; not too long ago the Clinton's claimed they were "broke"; now they swim in the money, how come? I guess they must get an "management fee" .

    Anyway my point is like they say in Dutch: "Hoge bomen vangen veel wind" ( Tall trees catch a lot of wind)

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Clinton Foundation helps 31000 schools fight childhood obesity. Childhood obesity for school age kids is on the rise. Instead of spreading money thinly to reach as many acknowledgements as possible why not pick one problem and fix it. The Clinton Foundation is more of a credential campaign. That is my problem with the Clinton and most foundations. Pomp and circumstance are above accompishments.
    The Clinton's could single handily cure cancer and you would lash out at them for not focusing on ALS.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: A question I have is; why "foreign" donations? If then the charity is applied to such foreign nation, I can understand that.

    Because there are wealthy people who live outside of America who want to donate some of their money to help people in need.

    Dutch Wrote: Also I question what is in it for the Clinton's; not too long ago the Clinton's claimed they were "broke"; now they swim in the money, how come? I guess they must get an "management fee" .

    They swim in a lot of money because businesses pay them a lot of money to speak and publishers pay them a lot of money to write books.

    The speaking circuit is a lucrative business for numerous people.

    Donald Trump has a $1.5 million speaking fee; Hillary Clinton had a $200,000 speaking fee. I'm not the best mathematician, but even I can understand that $1.5 million is more than $200,000.


    The Clinton Foundation has an "A" rating and spends roughly 88% of all of its roughly $242,000,000 endowment on philanthropic work. The remaining 12% is used for "[f]undraising, management and general expenses."

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Matthew Yglesias of Vox has a good article on AP's "big expose" of Hillary's meeting with Clinton Foundation contributors. Yglesias writes that the AP journalists "revelation" made immediate waves in the social media as political journalists of all stripes were quick to jump on it.

    "Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom."

    "The many Americans who already have a negative view of Clinton will see these facts ricocheting through their feeds and appearing on Fox chyrons and will further entrench their negative views...Only a relatively small handful of people will actually read the story from beginning to end and see that there’s no there there."

    "But what we know is that despite very intensive media scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation, we don’t have hard evidence of any kind of corrupt activity. That’s the story."

    The other story that has evolved in ethical media circles including Media Matters is that AP engaged in shoddy journalism in order to hit Hillary Clinton. Some point to the fact that the mainstream media profits from this sensationalism and that the closer they can also make the race to the White House, the more they profit from TV ads and other journalistic endeavors. If Hillary gets too far out front in the polls it's bad for the media business.

    Shame on the Associated Press and those news outlets and journalists that were too quick to hop on board the AP train to profit from the hack job.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: A question I have is; why "foreign" donations? If then the charity is applied to such foreign nation, I can understand that.

    Because there are wealthy people who live outside of America who want to donate some of their money to help people in need.

    Dutch Wrote: Also I question what is in it for the Clinton's; not too long ago the Clinton's claimed they were "broke"; now they swim in the money, how come? I guess they must get an "management fee" .

    They swim in a lot of money because businesses pay them a lot of money to speak and publishers pay them a lot of money to write books.

    The speaking circuit is a lucrative business for numerous people.

    Donald Trump has a $1.5 million speaking fee; Hillary Clinton had a $200,000 speaking fee. I'm not the best mathematician, but even I can understand that $1.5 million is more than $200,000.


    The Clinton Foundation has an "A" rating and spends roughly 88% of all of its roughly $242,000,000 endowment on philanthropic work. The remaining 12% is used for "[f]undraising, management and general expenses."

    Jared, exactly the answer I expected. I guess you are happy with the corrupt system here and stick your head in the sand.

    Read what I said about elections here; I repeat: "half a billion dollars to elect non suited people'? Who don't have to do such for the money? How about the way they do it in Europe; the candidate can spent only 100K and can only advertise on an government provided billboard of plywood. How about that for a change?

    Aren't you ashamed of this process here?