2016 Republican Thread

[DrunkBomber]

According to CharityWatch, the foundation spends 88% of its money on programs and only 12% on overhead. Where are you getting 90% from?

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watch...n-a-slush-fund/

 

I dont have any interest in arguing semantics on whether or not you think paying for first class travel accommodations should count as going towards charitable work. My point is, considering all of the controversy involved with this charity, is that its irresponsible to use tax payer money to pay the salaries of a not for profit organization that is dealing in billions of dollars.

 

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.

[greg775]

I won't vote for Trump or Hillary, but I'd rather have Trump than Hillary. I'll write in Jesse Ventura I guess.

[DrunkBomber]

 

This pretty much sums up CNN lately.

[caulfield12]

I never said it was a scandal. I just stated my opinion that it looks bad for a former president, who also happens to be a multimillionaire, to use tax dollars to help pay salaries of employees of a not for profit that brings in billions of dollars and uses 90% of it on expenses, salaries and travel. The top executives of the Clinton Foundation make over 500k per year and we need to use tax dollars to help pay for it?

 

Billions?

 

C'mon, it's a drop in the bucket compared to Apple's tax bill.

 

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Clinton-Fo...ies-E230271.htm

What top execs are making over $500,000 per year?

 

There's also no way you can come close to substantiating that 90%.

 

 

You'd be better off targeting DiCaprio's charity.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/3...harity-malaysia

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

Billions?

 

C'mon, it's a drop in the bucket compared to Apple's tax bill.

 

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Clinton-Fo...ies-E230271.htm

What top execs are making over $500,000 per year?

 

There's also no way you can come close to substantiating that 90%.

 

 

You'd be better off targeting DiCaprio's charity.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/3...harity-malaysia

I dont have any interest in arguing semantics on whether or not you think paying for first class travel accommodations should count as going towards charitable work. My point is, considering all of the controversy involved with this charity, is that its irresponsible to use tax payer money to pay the salaries of a not for profit organization that is dealing in billions of dollars.

 

[caulfield12]

 

 

Once again, where is this "billions" of dollars coming from?

 

I hope you're not adding in Gates and Buffett because they have cooperated/collaborated with the Clinton Global Heath Initiative in the past...because the total endowment is significant but only in the hundreds of millions.

 

Uber is theoretically worth $39 billion.

 

 

For what it's worth, I actually read two of the anti-Clinton Foundation books and I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but there's a key difference between illegal and unseemly. Both of them are lawyers, they've always managed to straddle the line for 35+ years.

[DrunkBomber]

Once again, where is this "billions" of dollars coming from?

 

I hope you're not adding in Gates and Buffett because they have cooperated/collaborated with the Clinton Global Heath Initiative in the past...because the total endowment is significant but only in the hundreds of millions.

 

Uber is theoretically worth $39 billion.

 

 

For what it's worth, I actually read two of the anti-Clinton Foundation books and I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but there's a key difference between illegal and unseemly. Both of them are lawyers, they've always managed to straddle the line for 35+ years.

You need to read what I said for the third time. Im not trying to argue semantics. Its about using tax payer money to help pay employees. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[StrangeSox]

All charities use tax payer money in that they're tax exempt, so it just seems off to level this criticism at only the Clinton Foundation.

[caulfield12]

You need to read what I said for the third time. Im not trying to argue semantics. Its about using tax payer money to help pay employees. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Who are you talking about?

 

Huma Abedin?

 

Before, the argument was about Bill Clinton subsidizing salaries...why is that a problem as well?

 

As Strangesox notes, every 501 c 3 in the US takes advantage of a government loophole, whether it's the United Way, Red Cross or Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_f...ax_Reform"]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform

They get a tax exemption to fight against the very idea of ever raising any tax, anywhere, ever again...isn't that a bit ironic? The government is "protecting" the very same entity that's attacking it.

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2016 by caulfield12

[DrunkBomber]

Theyre using tax dollars from a fund designed to "keep former presidents out of the poor house" to pay part of the salaries of the foundations employees despite that they are dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars annually and are already using the majority of the foundations money to pay salaries and travel. If you think that is appropriate, fine. I dont.

[DrunkBomber]

This is what Im talking about, as I posted this in my first post about this topic.

 

Bill Clinton's staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.

 

Taxpayer cash was used to buy IT equipment — including servers — housed at the Clinton Foundation, and also to supplement the pay and benefits of several aides now at the center of the email and cash-for-access scandals dogging Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 

The Act authorizes the GSA to fund the pensions, correspondence, support staff and travel of ex-presidents. It was passed in 1958 to “maintain the dignity” of the presidency by helping former commanders in chief avoid hard times like those that befell Harry S. Truman. He complained that, without help from Uncle Sam, he would be forced to “go ahead with some contracts to keep ahead of the hounds.”

[caulfield12]

This is what Im talking about, as I posted this in my first post about this topic.

 

But how many former presidents have ever run a worldwide charity after leaving office?

Carter never ran Habitat for Humanity.

 

Harry Truman was a farmer who never cared about the trappings of office, so the pension was a lifesaver.

Certainly the Founding Fathers never conceived of the dollar figures of today...or even projecting from the standard of living in the 1950's compared to today.

 

Same for Nixon as well, although that's another debate.

Edited September 4, 2016 by caulfield12

[DrunkBomber]

But how many former presidents have ever run a worldwide charity after leaving office?

Carter never ran Habitat for Humanity.

 

Harry Truman was a farmer who never cared about the trappings of office, so the pension was a lifesaver.

Certainly the Founding Fathers never conceived of the dollar figures of today...or even projecting from the standard of living in the 1950's compared to today.

 

Same for Nixon as well, although that's another debate.

Every single post youve made is completely irrelevant to what Im talking about. I know you want to move the conversation to something you can argue about but Im not interested.

[caulfield12]

Every single post youve made is completely irrelevant to what Im talking about. I know you want to move the conversation to something you can argue about but Im not interested.

 

Comparing Harry S. Truman's financial situation in 1952 to the extremely complicated, globalized financial world of today is equally irrelevant imo.

 

Obviously you have an axe to grind on this issue like Greg with Hillary. Good luck finding a receptive audience. There's 40-45% of the US who hate the Clintons and another 50-60% who hate Trump. Nobody's going tonchange their mind on that family with 35+ years of public information to sift through.

Edited September 4, 2016 by caulfield12

[DrunkBomber]

Comparing Harry S. Truman's financial situation in 1952 to the extremely complicated, globalized financial world of today is equally irrelevant imo.

 

Obviously you have an axe to grind on this issue like Greg with Hillary. Good luck finding a receptive audience. There's 40-45% of the US who hate the Clintons and another 50-60% who hate Trump. Nobody's going tonchange their mind on that family with 35+ years of public information to sift through.

Hopefully you can find someone else to debate Harry Truman with you.

[greg775]

I never said it was a scandal. I just stated my opinion that it looks bad for a former president, who also happens to be a multimillionaire, to use tax dollars to help pay salaries of employees of a not for profit that brings in billions of dollars and uses 90% of it on expenses, salaries and travel. The top executives of the Clinton Foundation make over 500k per year and we need to use tax dollars to help pay for it?

I find it odd we Americans complain about the corrupt politicians yet we are about to elect one of the most corrupt ever in a landslide vote. What is going on here, America?? Great post.

[Chicago White Sox]

I find it odd we Americans complain about the corrupt politicians yet we are about to elect one of the most corrupt ever in a landslide vote. What is going on here, America?? Great post.

Are you really asking this? Donald Trump is the only alternative and probably the biggest threat to our world's well-being. It sucks that these are our only candidates, but a corrupt Hilary >>>>>>>>>> an insane Trump and it's not even debatable.

[Quin]

I find it odd we Americans complain about the corrupt politicians yet we are about to elect one of the most corrupt ever in a landslide vote. What is going on here, America?? Great post.

 

Hillary isn't even remotely close to 'most corrupt ever', christ.

 

Edit: This is more or less due to the fact that we have had some pretty s***ty ones.

[greg775]

Hillary isn't even remotely close to 'most corrupt ever', christ.

 

Edit: This is more or less due to the fact that we have had some pretty s***ty ones.

We're talking "corrupt" though. What other candidate (besides possibly Donald) has ever been more shady/corrupt than Hillary?

[Quin]

We're talking "corrupt" though. What other candidate (besides possibly Donald) has ever been more shady/corrupt than Hillary?

 

I listed this a while ago so I'm not going to do fall-on-deaf ears research again but Pierce and I believe Hoover are easy calls. Pretty sure Taft's staff was beyond corupt. Nixon. Buchanan.

 

That's just winners. If we include losers, Aaron Burr takes the cake, pie and whatever they sell at the Lawrence Applebee's.

[greg775]

I listed this a while ago so I'm not going to do fall-on-deaf ears research again but Pierce and I believe Hoover are easy calls. Pretty sure Taft's staff was beyond corupt. Nixon. Buchanan.

 

That's just winners. If we include losers, Aaron Burr takes the cake, pie and whatever they sell at the Lawrence Applebee's.

Good list. I guess our whole system has been corrupt forever. That's why I wanted Bernie. He seemed genuine. Hillary and Trump should be thrown back so to speak and we should try again.

[RegionSox]

Back in the 1800s Presidents used to just blatantly sell federal jobs to donors with the spoils system

[Middle Buffalo]

Hillary said Trump choked when he had a chance to tell the President of Mexico that Mexico would be paying for the wall. Trip, of course, responds. Have to love the prospect of a President who can't take criticism. https://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-trump-says-...topstories.html Trump is the definition of a guy who can dish it out, but can't take it.

 

I can already picture him going after private citizens who are critical of him. "Middle Buffalo - such a loser. Do you see what he posts? And he's a Sox fan. Such a loser. No, it's the truth."

Edited September 6, 2016 by Middle Buffalo

[Jenksismyhero]

That Commander in Chief forum just epitomized what an awful, awful election this is. Career politician robot who has sold her soul v. complete moron.

 

One thing that depresses me is that for as dumb as Trump is, there are a few general viewpoints or at least perspectives he has that a competent politician really could have run with to change politics in 2016. Trump was asked last night about his knowledge of ISIS and his ability to be the President (e.g., will he be ready from day one). Of course he went the narcissistic route and touted that he knows more than anyone, but he could have used that as time to speak to the people of this country honestly about the weird expectation voters have that the President is or should be an expert on every issue. He could have answered honestly that he isn't an expert on healthcare, on terrorism, on the economy, etc., but that no President is and anyone claiming to be is a liar. He's going to assemble the experts to advise him on the state of X.

 

The President is an executive. The role is a manager. You delegate tasks, you have experts advise you on the best positions, and then you make the best decision possible. That would have been such a good answer but of course he's a f***ing moron so that's not where he went with it.

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

That Commander in Chief forum just epitomized what an awful, awful election this is. Career politician robot who has sold her soul v. complete moron.

 

One thing that depresses me is that for as dumb as Trump is, there are a few general viewpoints or at least perspectives he has that a competent politician really could have run with to change politics in 2016. Trump was asked last night about his knowledge of ISIS and his ability to be the President (e.g., will he be ready from day one). Of course he went the narcissistic route and touted that he knows more than anyone, but he could have used that as time to speak to the people of this country honestly about the weird expectation voters have that the President is or should be an expert on every issue. He could have answered honestly that he isn't an expert on healthcare, on terrorism, on the economy, etc., but that no President is and anyone claiming to be is a liar. He's going to assemble the experts to advise him on the state of X.

 

The President is an executive. The role is a manager. You delegate tasks, you have experts advise you on the best positions, and then you make the best decision possible. That would have been such a good answer but of course he's a f***ing moron so that's not where he went with it.

Ya neither one of them were really answering the questions well. Pretty much everything Trump said about the military and the generals was pretty ridiculous. It seemed like he was trying to say Obama isnt letting them do the job but thats not how it came out. He also needs to clarify his interview with Stern about saying "Ya I guess so" about invading Iraq if he is gonna keep claiming he was gonna be against it from day one.

 

Hillary quadrupled down on her lie about sending classified info and pretty much refusing to acknowledge anything that was said in the FBI notes. Hillary also goes first and Lauer tells her not to bring up Trump and she did it numerous times, in fairness so did Trump but only after she mentioned him. My main take away from Hillary is she doesnt feel like she should have to address tough questions. She has been running and hiding from scandal after scandal since before the primaries hoping they will go away instead of just addressing them.