Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hi Rosebuddy, you only have to see the Republican members of DakkaDakka who are swinging in line behind Trumpo despite previously disliking him to understand that party loyalties are important in influencing voting patterns.
It would be a piss-poor party that wouldn't rally all possible support behind its chosen candidate.
Sanders himself will rally to Clinton because a Democrat president and success down the ballot is the best chance he's got to get any of his ideas into consideration in the next four years.
Trump is like an Orange Hum-V running donuts in a cemetary.
Quit it. You're making me want to vote for Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Hi Rosebuddy, you only have to see the Republican members of DakkaDakka who are swinging in line behind Trumpo despite previously disliking him to understand that party loyalties are important in influencing voting patterns.
It would be a piss-poor party that wouldn't rally all possible support behind its chosen candidate.
Sanders himself will rally to Clinton because a Democrat president and success down the ballot is the best chance he's got to get any of his ideas into consideration in the next four years.
Sanders is not a Democrat. Thats not his party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/09 11:13:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Sanders himself will rally to Clinton because a Democrat president and success down the ballot is the best chance he's got to get any of his ideas into consideration in the next four years.
The Democratic Party has rejected Sanders, what he stands for and his voter base. The best chance that the left has to get anything done in the next four years is not to submit to the DNC, it's to continue the struggle at every available level. They didn't get this far by prostrating themselves and swearing undying loyalty to the party. A political nobody managed to snag like 44% of the vote in a party that doesn't want him through mobilising a demographic that historically doesn't vote much because they have the most practical barriers to overcome. If Sanders doesn't work out then this group is going to turn elsewhere. It is indeed a piss-poor party that can't rally all possible support behind their candidate but the Clinton campaign is more interested in courting what they've termed Republicans Against Trump than adopting social-democratic policies and extending an olive branch to the youth. They want RATs more than they do the ostensible future of the party.
So there's a much bigger break there between Sanders and Clinton voters than there is between Trump and other GOP voters. Trump ultimately is just the culmination of GOP policies and tactics. His main difference is in his tone. His base isn't the alt-right weirdos, neo-nazis and other loudmouths, tho he doesn't particularly mind them, it's white middle class that either recently became former middle-class due to the economy or fear becoming former middle-class.
But Sanders is officially an Independent who only caucused with the Democrats in the Senate. He has no party loyalty. We'll see what he does.
Trump...well his loyalties lie soley to his hair.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ahtman wrote: That is ok as I have done the same and feel similarly about your posts on the subject, but I think we are talking past each other to be honest.
That's probably true, yeah.
And I didn't say otherwise so I'm not sure why you would make that argument. If any candidate is going to be ineffectual it would be nice to at least like the candidate. As it is I have to choose one I neither like nor believe will get anything done. I don't mean "like" as in I would have a beer with her, but in being ok with voting for them.
I think her policy positions are pretty good, to be honest. They're basically the same as Sanders, and any difference would get lost in the mix of getting stuff implemented.
Having a long history of being hated doesn't make one good, it just makes them hated for a long time.
You've snipped my post to remove the part where I explain why that history does matter. Clinton hits the ground running. She knows that given congress as it is most things get achieved through executive (something Obama didn't really understand until his second term).
If you care about things like climate change, then the choice is between someone who will expand the role of the EPA in encouraging renewables, and a guy who wants to roll back CFC bans because he likes the old kind of hairspray.
It doesn't really matter much overall as I am not electing a friend but man is she a dull choice and I'm sad to have it be another Clinton.
Honestly I think the first Clinton did a good job, and this newer, womanier Clinton is more or less the same thing, just a little more left wing on economic issues. Doesn't have the charisma, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: Sanders isn't Obama, tho. Obama was vastly more palatable to the Democratic leadership so it wasn't much trouble to back him over Clinton. It was just a matter of considering which of them was more popular, not which of them best represented the leadership's wishes. Using the superdelegates to sway the nomination wasn't necessary.
Sanders sold the line that he was out there selling something that was just miles away from what that darn dirty Democratic establishment wanted, and people bought it like they bought Obama's 'change'. But it was a sales pitch. All the stuff about campaign finance reform is already in the party platform. Minimum wage is already in there. Free college is about the only difference to the Democrats plan of increased scholarships and reduced interest rates... but honestly Sanders position there is fairly crazy given the current US system.
There's this idea that if Sanders won there'd be all these 'establishment' types in their cigar rooms looking so shocked their monocles popped off. But Sanders is well within the ordinary range of ordinary Democratic policies.
If superdelegates weren't meant to potentially counteract a candidate that the party leadership didn't like there wouldn't be a point to them. Why have a system that just gives the winner even more support?
The reason for power is power. Ask why a middle manager insists on a sign off for IT spending he doesn't understand. Ask why local governments insist on giving approval to every housing development, when they don't understand them and just accept the planner's word when he says it's all okay. Because people want to have a final say.
Ask why the royal family of England was so keen to stay in nominal power that they were willing to give away actual power. Because people just love having 'power', even if it means they can never use it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democratic Party has rejected Sanders, what he stands for and his voter base. The best chance that the left has to get anything done in the next four years is not to submit to the DNC, it's to continue the struggle at every available level.
Ralph Nader, is that you?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 12:27:01
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
And now you have! Nickelback is a solid post-grunge rock act that doesn't take itself too seriously (look at the lyrics to songs like Rockstar) and is no more samey and sellout than Foo Fighters. The fact that they are comfortable with their commercial success is just the recycled "sell out: criticism that has nothing to do with, well anything. Best critique I have seen is that they were overplayed (Photograph, anyone?). But that applies to most big sellers....
Back on topic, looks like Sanders is meeting with Obama. That should be interesting.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Agreed. My favorite past time is seeing which is the bigger argument: Left vs. Right Voters, or the young vs. the old
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
And now you have! Nickelback is a solid post-grunge rock act that doesn't take itself too seriously (look at the lyrics to songs like Rockstar) and is no more samey and sellout than Foo Fighters. The fact that they are comfortable with their commercial success is just the recycled "sell out: criticism that has nothing to do with, well anything. Best critique I have seen is that they were overplayed (Photograph, anyone?). But that applies to most big sellers....
Back on topic, looks like Sanders is meeting with Obama. That should be interesting.
Eh, gonna have to disagree. Silver Side Up was an absolutely fantastic album, but everything after that went down hill. My problem isn't that their comfortable with their success, it's that all their songs sound the same and have no real depth to them. It's fun, pop, Pringles rock. And Foo Fighters are hardly sellouts I challenge you to find a more distinguished living musician than Dave Grohl. Did I like everyone of his songs? No, but they each felt different and had interesting lyrics. That and the guy is just absolutely down to earth, no feths given. Probably one of the most likeable human beings.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 14:39:39
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
I don't know where you are located, but many areas have early voting, even for primaries. I was able to vote on the Saturday before the IL primary, for example. Some places have mail-in or other options.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Agreed. My favorite past time is seeing which is the bigger argument: Left vs. Right Voters, or the young vs. the old
I have never in my life met a Nickelback supporter, any yet...
And now you have! Nickelback is a solid post-grunge rock act that doesn't take itself too seriously (look at the lyrics to songs like Rockstar) and is no more samey and sellout than Foo Fighters. The fact that they are comfortable with their commercial success is just the recycled "sell out: criticism that has nothing to do with, well anything. Best critique I have seen is that they were overplayed (Photograph, anyone?). But that applies to most big sellers....
Back on topic, looks like Sanders is meeting with Obama. That should be interesting.
Eh, gonna have to disagree. Silver Side Up was an absolutely fantastic album, but everything after that went down hill. My problem isn't that their comfortable with their success, it's that all their songs sound the same and have no real depth to them. It's fun, pop, Pringles rock. And Foo Fighters are hardly sellouts I challenge you to find a more distinguished living musician than Dave Grohl. Did I like everyone of his songs? No, but they each felt different and had interesting lyrics. That and the guy is just absolutely down to earth, no feths given. Probably one of the most likeable human beings.
Silver Side Up was awesome. Everything after was fine...not great, not bad. But I also enjoy Creed. So...w/e.
Back on topic, I actually feel a great swell of pity for the Sanders supporters. They are NOT gonna get what he's promised. And it would be even worse if he got elected, because they STILL wouldn't have gotten what he promised. Whole group of people who just don't understand how our system works... (Or doesn't, depending on your point of view.)
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
jreilly89 wrote: A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
We've actually been going the other way with that, in terms of ease of voting. Getting people to vote for you is hard, but trying to disenfranchise the people who might vote for your opponent is, as it turns out, pretty doable.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
While largely ignored by the media, the Clintons have their own university scandal. Donald Trump has been rightfully criticized and sued over his defunct Trump University. There is ample support for claiming that the Trump University was fraudulent in its advertisements and operations. However, the national media has been accused of again sidestepping a scandal involving the Clintons that involves the same type of fraud allegations. The scandal involves the dubious Laureate Education for-profit college and entails many of the common elements with other Clinton scandals: huge sums given to the Clintons and questions of conflicts with Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. There are distinctions to draw between the two stories, but the virtual radio silence on the Clinton/Laureate story is surprising.
I have long been a critic of most online courses, though I am increasingly in the minority even on my faculty. However, the rise of online courses has allowed for an increase in dubious pitches and practices that prey upon people who cannot afford or attend a traditional academic institution.
Laureate Education has been sued over such programs as its Walden University Online offering, which many have alleged is a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees. Students says that they were repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them deeply in debt.
The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal.
There was even a class action — like the Trump University scandal.Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.
As an academic, I find both Trump University and Laureate to be deeply troubling stories. Yet, only one has been pursued by the media to any significant degree. I am not suggesting that Laureate as a whole is fraudulent. Moreover, there are distinctions that can be drawn with a university like Trump that is based entirely on the presumptive nominee and his promises in advertising. However, the money given to the Clintons, the involvement of the State Department, and the claims of fraud make this an obviously significant story in my view.
Thus your article's writer seems like he doesn't know what he is talking about, or else he has deliberately obfuscated the issue for a reason that might be guessed at.
Trump is accused of illegal fraudulent behavior and has made racist disparaging comments regarding the judge. HRC took a boatload of money from a university with a crapsack online program to be a figurehead. Big difference. While most online universities are pretty much garbage, they are legal and I can't see many politicians turning down that kind of money when they basically have to do nothing in return. I contrast, TU is one of Trump's businesses that is accused of illegally ripping people off.
jmurph wrote: Trump is accused of illegal fraudulent behavior and has made racist disparaging comments regarding the judge. HRC took a boatload of money from a university with a crapsack online program to be a figurehead. Big difference. While most online universities are pretty much garbage, they are legal and I can't see many politicians turning down that kind of money when they basically have to do nothing in return. I contrast, TU is one of Trump's businesses that is accused of illegally ripping people off.
And what were the States Department funneling $55 million to Laureate for?
Obama just endorsed Clinton after meeting with Sanders. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that meeting. I thought he would have waited until after the DC primary. Either Sanders said he was ok with the endorsement or said something Obama didn't like.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
You know new senior citizens are being made every day. I don't think we will run out soon unless we implement the Logan's Run initiative.
And what were the States Department funneling $55 million to Laureate for?
Citation needed.
I've found three articles talking about this money from the State Department, and even though they link to every source about anything, none of them are linking to any kind of source on that specific issue.
If I had to guess, I would guess that they are claiming that scholarships and tuition reinbursements and loan repayments and stuff for State Department employees were used by employees who attended that school and that is what they are considering "funneling money".
If you google this story the first 15 links are all right-wing blog-style pieces generated in the past couple of days, probably referencing each other.
The only substantiated fact is the court records I linked above. These show that basic elements of the story are false.
I think we can put this one down as another lot of Republican poo-slinging, just a bit more sophisticated then ripping a pic of some woman with facial injuries and claiming she was beaten up by Bernie Sanders's supporters.
As a young voter (26), I have to say, they don't make it easy. I tried to vote in my Democratic Primary, and A) the only time was almost at 9 P.M. at night, which sucks because I have a 2 year old and a job at 7 A.M. and B) was almost impossible to get to.
A little more redesign on efficient/alternate voting options would go a long way to encouraging young people to vote.
But of course, "they" don't want you to vote. I've definitely seen and heard from slightly older generations a sort of fear about the younger one, no matter how unfounded or not it is. For those who lean democrat, these people who have that "fear" worry that the younger generation will take us farther left than they want, or that the younger generation will upset the status quo that keeps them rich or whatnot. I've seen rhetoric from those who lean right about their fear of how far left "today's youth" lean, even if they are talking about a Tea Party, republican voting youngster!
Of course, we've gone round and round in other threads regarding the doom and gloom view of how soft/weak/inept/pathetic, etc. today's youth are, but it's never really founded in reality.
While I don't really ascribe to any conspiracy theories, this one, of making it more difficult than necessary to vote plays right into those older adults mindset, and helps them hold onto whatever power they have/think they have.
Do people just suddenly get overcome with a sense of civic duty or soul crushing boredom when they become elderly and decide to volunteer to run polling places? Not every old person decides to volunteer and I'm assuming that some portion of the ones that choose to volunteer started doing it before they got old. It would be nice to see more people want to get involved.
I've never been to a polling location that had any volunteers staffing it that were younger than me (I'm in my mid 30s) and only rarely ever saw anyone my age. Every time I vote the place is entirely run by senior citizens. I feel like in another couple election cycles polling places are either going to be run completely by robots or be utter DMV style cluster feths.
You know new senior citizens are being made every day. I don't think we will run out soon unless we implement the Logan's Run initiative.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you google this story the first 15 links are all right-wing blog-style pieces generated in the past couple of days, probably referencing each other.
The only substantiated fact is the court records I linked above. These show that basic elements of the story are false.
I think we can put this one down as another lot of Republican poo-slinging, just a bit more sophisticated then ripping a pic of some woman with facial injuries and claiming she was beaten up by Bernie Sanders's supporters.
Does Bloomberg qulify as right wing? Michael Bloomberg was a Republican for a few years but I've never seen him referred to as right wing.
Laureate, which runs for-profit colleges, hired Clinton just as the Obama administration began drafting tougher regulations for federal financial aid that goes to students who attend for-profit colleges. Around the same time, the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions launched an investigation into the industry. In his book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, Schweizer writes that after Bill Clinton accepted the position at Laureate in 2010 in exchange for unspecified payment, his wife “made Laureate part of her State Department Global Partnership.” The State Department subsequently provided tens of millions of dollars to a nonprofit chaired by Becker, the International Youth Foundation.
Citing the foundation’s tax filings, Schweizer writes that while IYF had received government grants (mainly from the U.S. Agency for International Development) as far back as 2001, they “exploded since Bill became chancellor of Laureate,” accounting for the vast majority of the nonprofit’s revenue. In 2010, “government grants accounted for $23 million of its revenue, compared to $5.4 million from other sources. It received $21 million in 2011 and $23 million in 2012.” The link between International Youth Foundation and Laureate has not been previously reported, he said.
The Clinton campaign disputed Schweizer’s characterization. "This is yet another false allegation in a book that is fast being debunked," said Brian Fallon, a campaign spokesman. "The International Youth Foundation was funded by the Bush administration, well before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. In fact, the group's USAID funding actually went down in the year that she arrived at the State Department, not up."
A Bloomberg examination of IYF’s public filings show that in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.
Laureate has declined to say how much it has paid the former president. Hillary Clinton’s financial disclosure forms in 2012 revealed only that her husband received nonemployee compensation of more than $1,000 from the company that year. The Clinton Foundation’s donor disclosures showed that Laureate cumulatively gave between $1 million and $5 million through 2014. In his book, Schweizer noted that Bill Clinton, during the period when his wife was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, spoke at Laureate campuses in Honduras, Mexico City, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Peru, and the United States. Schweizer wrote that “based on his typical fee scale,” the half dozen speaking events Clinton has done annually for Laureate “means perhaps $1 million per year.” He dubbed this blend of government service and private remuneration the “Clinton blur.”
Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. He left the position earlier this year weeks after his wife launched her campaign.
In 2014, Bill Clinton made $9 million off of paid speeches and $6.4 million in consulting fees. Of that, $4.3 million came from Laureate and another $2.1 million from GEMS Education, a Dubai-based company that runs preschool and K-12 programs. He made less from those two gigs in previous years – $5.6 million in 2013 and $4.7 million in 2012. In 2011, the former president was paid $2.5 million by Laureate, $500,000 by GEMS and $100,000 by Teneo Holdings, a firm co-founded by former Clinton aide Doug Band.
I don't think this is the type of scandal that will move the needle in any meaningful way. I does add further support/evidence to the politics as usual pay to play characterization of the Clintons and politics in general that can get a lot of people upset but that's nothing new.
~1.5k
I challenge you to find a more distinguished living musician than Dave Grohl. Did I like everyone of his songs? No, but they each felt different and had interesting lyrics. That and the guy is just absolutely down to earth, no feths given. Probably one of the most likeable human beings.
