US Politics

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.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:

In 2013, this foundation's expeditures was:

Here's the 990 tax form in 2013:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

10% of money went to "other" charities.

You know, because the Clinton Foundation IS a charity. So 100% of their money went to charity.

Must be good to be a clintonite.

Must be good to not know how a charity works.

Of course, when people are repeating year old crap that has already been explained, it really just shows how much of a low-information voter they really are:

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly

When we look at the source of this claim, it tells us a lot about your source of information:

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.

What a surprise that you would find and repeat these kind of claims. But the truth goes on to say:

Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”

“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:

-Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
-Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
-Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
-Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.
For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses.

“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any event. But as I understand it, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, despite the name. Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be confusing, as they might seem like private foundations.

“The organization carries out programs,” Stehle said. “I am not intimately familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be considered charitable activities.”

The tl;dr explanation:

If you give the Red Cross $1,000,000, and they take $900,000 to perform charitable work and then give a $50,000 grant to the "Shoes For Veterans" foundation, you would be completely wrong to claim that the Red Cross spends $50,000 out of $1,000,000 on charities.

Get educated before you repeat whatever claim manages to fit your pre-established worldview.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:

In 2013, this foundation's expeditures was:

Here's the 990 tax form in 2013:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

10% of money went to "other" charities.

You know, because the Clinton Foundation IS a charity. So 100% of their money went to charity.

Must be good to be a clintonite.

Must be good to not know how a charity works.

Of course, when people are repeating year old crap that has already been explained, it really just shows how much of a low-information voter they really are:

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly

When we look at the source of this claim, it tells us a lot about your source of information:

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.

What a surprise that you would find and repeat these kind of claims. But the truth goes on to say:

Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”

“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:

-Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
-Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
-Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
-Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.
For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

As for conferences, nearly 98 percent of money spent was tabbed as a programming expense. And when it comes to salaries — which includes pension plan contributions, benefits and payroll taxes — about 73 percent went to program service expenses.

“I am not the expert on what portion of the Clinton Foundation activities are truly charitable,” Vince Stehle, executive director of Media Impact Funders and a board member of the Center for Effective Philanthropy told us via email. “But I can say that it is not appropriate to simply calculate that based on what portion goes out in grants. Certainly all types of foundations are able to engage in direct charitable activities in any event. But as I understand it, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity, despite the name. Many charities call themselves foundations, which can be confusing, as they might seem like private foundations.

“The organization carries out programs,” Stehle said. “I am not intimately familiar with those programs, but assuming they are genuine, those would be considered charitable activities.”

The tl;dr explanation:

If you give the Red Cross $1,000,000, and they take $900,000 to perform charitable work and then give a $50,000 grant to the "Shoes For Veterans" foundation, you would be completely wrong to claim that the Red Cross spends $50,000 out of $1,000,000 on charities.

Get educated before you repeat whatever claim manages to fit your pre-established worldview.

So, by me giving a cool $ million dollars to Red Cross... does that give me face time with high ranking government officials?

**d-usa**

You can fling all the poo you want, the only one ending up covered in gak is you.

feth it, off to ignore. It's a lost cause, even though I've tried for a long long time. It's just sad because I know you are too damn smart for all the stupid crap you somehow force yourself to believe. When a smart guy forces himself to accept dumb stuff on purpose, it's a lost cause.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

So, by me giving a cool $ million dollars to Red Cross... does that give me face time with high ranking government officials?

It would help, though you would also need the star power generated by connections.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
You can fling all the poo you want, the only one ending up covered in gak is you.

feth it, off to ignore. It's a lost cause, even though I've tried for a long long time. It's just sad because I know you are too damn smart for all the stupid crap you somehow force yourself to believe. When a smart guy forces himself to accept dumb stuff on purpose, it's a lost cause.

So... how will you ever witness what you believed to be my eventual Trumpening??

Look... dude.

At it's basic, the Clinton Foundation is about paying for highly-paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine... call it a charity if you want. But, it's interesting that you won't tolerate any sort of criticisms on this charity.

What's mind-boggling to me, is this acceptance of pay-to-play scheme here.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

What's mind-boggling to me, is this acceptance of pay-to-play scheme here.

Is this a thing which doesn't happen in conservative circles?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

What's mind-boggling to me, is this acceptance of pay-to-play scheme here.

Is this a thing which doesn't happen in conservative circles?

No. It happens regardless of parties.

Point being, do you accept this as a cost of doing business? O, do you object?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

No. It happens regardless of parties.

I'm not speaking of Parties.

whembly wrote:

Point being, do you accept this as a cost of doing business? O, do you object?

I don't know what you mean.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

No. It happens regardless of parties.

I'm not speaking of Parties.

whembly wrote:

Point being, do you accept this as a cost of doing business? O, do you object?

I don't know what you mean.

Then I have no idea what you're asking.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Then I have no idea what you're asking.

Please write plainly. I stated that I din't know what you mean because you were unclear.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Then I have no idea what you're asking.

Please write plainly. I stated that I din't know what you mean because you were unclear.

I have no idea what you're asking then.

Let's start over:

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

No. It happens regardless of parties.

I'm not speaking of Parties.

You're speaking of ideologies then?

whembly wrote:

Point being, do you accept this as a cost of doing business? O, do you object?

I don't know what you mean.

Pay for Play schemes. Is this acceptable in politics?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

You're speaking of ideologies then?

That's why I said "conservatism". and not "Republican".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Pay for Play schemes. Is this acceptable in politics?

I still don't know what you mean.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Pay for Play schemes. Is this acceptable in politics?

Of course it's acceptable, because we accept it. Every party does it, it's just one of the universal constants of politics. Expecting to do something about it by voting for different politicians, even third-party politicians, is wishful thinking.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

You're speaking of ideologies then?

That's why I said "conservatism". and not "Republican".

Why are you targeting conservatisms?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:

Pay for Play schemes. Is this acceptable in politics?

I still don't know what you mean.

Some foreigner donates $$$ to Clinton Foundation, get's rapid face-time/favorable treatment from Clinton during her SoS tenure.

Is that acceptable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Pay for Play schemes. Is this acceptable in politics?

Of course it's acceptable, because we accept it. Every party does it, it's just one of the universal constants of politics. Expecting to do something about it by voting for different politicians, even third-party politicians, is wishful thinking.

Okay. I reject it, and would call it out. But, yes it's inherent in our system

Now, what about foreign actors paying $$$ for some US government quid pro quo?

**Farseer Anath'lan**

whembly wrote:
Is that acceptable.

The alternative is that anyone gets face time right?
In that case, it probably is. If you're willing to donate that kind of $$$ you're making the statement that you're serious, and thus probably worth the bother of dealing with.
It's basically getting people to regulate the 'importance' of whatever it is they want, without you having to pay someone to do that.

In which instance, yeah, probably acceptable. But in no way should favours be expected.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Why are you targeting conservatisms?

That isn't a word, and it isn't what I said.

whembly wrote:

Some foreigner donates $$$ to Clinton Foundation, get's rapid face-time/favorable treatment from Clinton during her SoS tenure.

Is that acceptable.

Foreigner, huh? On a board with lots of "foreigners"?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Why are you targeting conservatisms?

That isn't a word.

dogma, I'm going to put you on ignore. You are simply ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
whembly wrote:
Is that acceptable.

The alternative is that anyone gets face time right?
In that case, it probably is. If you're willing to donate that kind of $$$ you're making the statement that you're serious, and thus probably worth the bother of dealing with.
It's basically getting people to regulate the 'importance' of whatever it is they want, without you having to pay someone to do that.

In which instance, yeah, probably acceptable. But in no way should favours be expected.

It's not acceptable.

We have laws specifically for this.

At most, non-foreigners can contribute money into a candidate's political coffer, or their related SuperPACs. As long as there's not obvious, "pay my X and you'll get X", these things are kosher.

The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's Secretary of State tenure, and her donors goes waaaaaay beyond that.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
At it's basic, the Clinton Foundation is about paying for highly-paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine... call it a charity if you want. But, it's interesting that you won't tolerate any sort of criticisms on this charity.

fething what?
"At its core, Doctors WIthout Borders is about paying for highly paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine, call it a charity if you want."

Paying individuals to work in communities in need is one of the major kinds of charity. Now, the work of the Clinton Foundation may not be the kind of charity that you personally adore. Maybe you're more of a guide dog kind of person, that's cool. And of course, the Clinton's aren't actually paying for the Foundation's work out of their own pockets, they're using other people's money, so I guess you can give them no credit for simply managing other people's charitable donations. Whatever.

But this nonsense where you try to invent some kind of a way to pretend that the Clinton Foundation basic work, of taking donations and then spending that on aid workers to improve health and capacity isn't what charity organisations do is fething ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
At most, non-foreigners can contribute money into a candidate's political coffer, or their related SuperPACs. As long as there's not obvious, "pay my X and you'll get X", these things are kosher.

The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's Secretary of State tenure, and her donors goes waaaaaay beyond that.

Except your statement there is false. Clinton never went beyond the normal understanding of how the rich deal with the powerful. There is an expectation of money to flow from the rich, and there is an expectation of an audience that the average unconnected, non-rich person could never get.

There was no obvious 'pay my X and you'll get Y' arrangement. Republicans are running around making allegations of such, but they're just making stuff up.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
At it's basic, the Clinton Foundation is about paying for highly-paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine... call it a charity if you want. But, it's interesting that you won't tolerate any sort of criticisms on this charity.

fething what?
"At its core, Doctors WIthout Borders is about paying for highly paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine, call it a charity if you want."

Paying individuals to work in communities in need is one of the major kinds of charity. Now, the work of the Clinton Foundation may not be the kind of charity that you personally adore. Maybe you're more of a guide dog kind of person, that's cool. And of course, the Clinton's aren't actually paying for the Foundation's work out of their own pockets, they're using other people's money, so I guess you can give them no credit for simply managing other people's charitable donations. Whatever.

It's more this: "they're using other people's money, so I guess you can give them no credit for simply managing other people's charitable donations. "

But this nonsense where you try to invent some kind of a way to pretend that the Clinton Foundation basic work, of taking donations and then spending that on aid workers to improve health and capacity isn't what charity organisations do is fething ridiculous.

The Clinton Health Access Iniative (CHAI) is distinctly different than the Foundation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
At most, non-foreigners can contribute money into a candidate's political coffer, or their related SuperPACs. As long as there's not obvious, "pay my X and you'll get X", these things are kosher.

The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's Secretary of State tenure, and her donors goes waaaaaay beyond that.

Except your statement there is false. Clinton never went beyond the normal understanding of how the rich deal with the powerful. There is an expectation of money to flow from the rich, and there is an expectation of an audience that the average unconnected, non-rich person could never get.

There was no obvious 'pay my X and you'll get Y' arrangement. Republicans are running around making allegations of such, but they're just making stuff up.

Rich and powerful shouldn't have to "give money" to the Foundation, and get favorable treatment from a Foundation-connected government officials.

That's simply abuse of the public trust that Clinton was privileged with when Obama nominated her as SoS.

I mean, if you're arguing that it's kosher and all above-board... then, why did Clinton announce that her foundation will stop accepting foreign and corporate donations if elected.?

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
That's simply abuse of the public trust that Clinton was privileged with when Obama nominated her as SoS.

And guess what: everyone abuses that trust. If you elect Clinton her administration will do it. If you elect Trump or some other republican they will do it. If you elect whatever wishful thinking third party candidate you're pretending to vote for instead of Trump they will do it. You can call it unacceptable all you like, but the simple fact is that it's just how the system works. Singling out Clinton for criticism is pointless.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
It's more this: "they're using other people's money, so I guess you can give them no credit for simply managing other people's charitable donations. "

Sure, that's what you're now claiming, now that I've suggested it as an option to you. Before that you were casting doubt as to whether the organisation was a charity at all.

The Clinton Health Access Iniative (CHAI) is distinctly different than the Foundation.

It was spun off from the Foundation in 2010. You're getting your Republican attack points confused, the line is supposed to be that the CHAI is sill really part of the Foundation, and that it was spun in only a legal sense, so it could avoid the same donor declaration rules that Clinton agreed to for the rest of the Foundation.

Rich and powerful shouldn't have to "give money" to the Foundation, and get favorable treatment from a Foundation-connected government officials.

Once again, they didn't "have" to give money. There is exactly zero evidence that talks with Clinton were conditional on donations. There isn't even anything to imply it was true. There was a Bahrani prince who'd waited a whole of two days without getting a response that he could meet with Clinton, and then an email came through to hurry things along which mentioned his donation to the Clinton Foundation. As evidence of 'pay to play' it is pathetically weak.

I mean, if you're arguing that it's kosher and all above-board...

When did I say that? Holy gak man how many times do I have to spell it out?

It is not good that there is an expectation of money flowing from the rich to the powerful will produce easier access and more sympathetic ear. This is not good. This is bad. But this is how the world works. Anything we can do to minimize this would be good. But singling out Clinton for a minor instance will not address the issue at all.

I also think there's a big issue with the weird fixation only on foreign money. Big money is problematic, whether the person is foreign or American. You think the Koch brothers have your best interests at heart any more than a Chinese billionaire?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Rich and powerful shouldn't have to "give money" to the Foundation, and get favorable treatment from a Foundation-connected government officials.

That's simply abuse of the public trust that Clinton was privileged with when Obama nominated her as SoS.

I still don't know what you mean, she was a Senator (for quite a while) prior to being nominated as Secretary of State, and politically active prior to that. That's a large part of why she's hated.

whembly wrote:

I mean, if you're arguing that it's kosher and all above-board... then, why did Clinton announce that her foundation will stop accepting foreign and corporate donations if elected.?

Because she's running for the Presidency and certain people dislike "foreigners"?

**skyth**

http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/12/everybodys-so-different-i-havent.html?m=1

A good article about the experiences of someone the GOP left behind.

**reds8n**

chorus needs more work really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ann-coulter-book-launch_us_57be9461e4b02673444e79f4

**Tannhauser42**

sebster wrote:

I also think there's a big issue with the weird fixation only on foreign money. Big money is problematic, whether the person is foreign or American. You think the Koch brothers have your best interests at heart any more than a Chinese billionaire?

Arguably, the Chinese billionaire might actually be better concerned with our interests, as he likely wants to just continue manufacturing and selling stuff to Americans and American businesses rather than pushing any particular political ideology.

@Whembly
I think you're getting your terms mixed up. It's not that any of us "accept" the whole money in politics and pay to play thing, it's just that we're resigned to it. You should understand the difference best, because as a Republican not voting for Trump: do you accept Trump as your party's nominee, or are you just resigned to the fact that he is?

**jmurph**

whembly wrote:
sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
At it's basic, the Clinton Foundation is about paying for highly-paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine... call it a charity if you want. But, it's interesting that you won't tolerate any sort of criticisms on this charity.

fething what?
"At its core, Doctors WIthout Borders is about paying for highly paid consultants for a myriad of programs. That's fine, call it a charity if you want."

Paying individuals to work in communities in need is one of the major kinds of charity. Now, the work of the Clinton Foundation may not be the kind of charity that you personally adore. Maybe you're more of a guide dog kind of person, that's cool. And of course, the Clinton's aren't actually paying for the Foundation's work out of their own pockets, they're using other people's money, so I guess you can give them no credit for simply managing other people's charitable donations. Whatever.

It's more this: "they're using other people's money, so I guess you can give them no credit for simply managing other people's charitable donations. "

But this nonsense where you try to invent some kind of a way to pretend that the Clinton Foundation basic work, of taking donations and then spending that on aid workers to improve health and capacity isn't what charity organisations do is fething ridiculous.

The Clinton Health Access Iniative (CHAI) is distinctly different than the Foundation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
At most, non-foreigners can contribute money into a candidate's political coffer, or their related SuperPACs. As long as there's not obvious, "pay my X and you'll get X", these things are kosher.

The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's Secretary of State tenure, and her donors goes waaaaaay beyond that.

Except your statement there is false. Clinton never went beyond the normal understanding of how the rich deal with the powerful. There is an expectation of money to flow from the rich, and there is an expectation of an audience that the average unconnected, non-rich person could never get.

There was no obvious 'pay my X and you'll get Y' arrangement. Republicans are running around making allegations of such, but they're just making stuff up.

Rich and powerful shouldn't have to "give money" to the Foundation, and get favorable treatment from a Foundation-connected government officials.

That's simply abuse of the public trust that Clinton was privileged with when Obama nominated her as SoS.

I mean, if you're arguing that it's kosher and all above-board... then, why did Clinton announce that her foundation will stop accepting foreign and corporate donations if elected.?

Probably because of all the ridiculous attacks trying to leverage a legit charity into a political liability? It's a political move.

Look, I'm no fan of HRC, but the Republican attacks against here are ridiculous. They keep trying to build mountains on molehills and are nor resorting to trying to make molehills because they will not engage in actual policy debates. They have abandoned principles and a mapping out a better path for mudslinging and stoking paranoid hysteria. Trump's campaign represents the current Republican position quite well- they have nominated someone that should be anathema to any philosophical conservative and abandoned their Lincoln and Eisenhower ideal to embrace interventionist nationalism. Rather than appealing to groups that would naturally embrace traditional conservative values such as recent immigrants, they are actively alienating them. Any populist appeal they have is instantly undercut by their slavish devotion to the donor classes. The have to resort to absurdity because they have pushed themselves to the end of the plank and refuse to walk back, even though there is a whole ship back there.

Things that are not legitimate critiques of HRC:
Benghazi
Email
Clinton Foundation

Things that are legitimate critiques:
Support for escalation of military activism in the ME, especially Syria- very hawkish
History of relations with Wall Street and lack of support for reforms
Lack of policy to deal with stagnant wage (plan to give benefits to corporations seems very "trickle down")
Lack of competency/awareness in cyber security
Lack of coherent policy addressing China

So basically, many of the concerns you would expect with a typical Republican candidate.

**BigWaaagh**

reds8n wrote:

chorus needs more work really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ann-coulter-book-launch_us_57be9461e4b02673444e79f4

This is your brain. This is your brain on Fox News...any questions?

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
sebster wrote:

I also think there's a big issue with the weird fixation only on foreign money. Big money is problematic, whether the person is foreign or American. You think the Koch brothers have your best interests at heart any more than a Chinese billionaire?

Arguably, the Chinese billionaire might actually be better concerned with our interests, as he likely wants to just continue manufacturing and selling stuff to Americans and American businesses rather than pushing any particular political ideology.

Chinese company with American assets does indeed contribute to political process. However, the Chinese Billionaire himself should not be able to donate to any political process unless he, himself, is a citizens. We have laws for this now.

At least Koch brothers, George Soros, et el. should be able to do whatever they want within established laws. The hope is that it's transparent to the public so that voters can be informed. Things like this Open Secret page.

@Whembly
I think you're getting your terms mixed up. It's not that any of us "accept" the whole money in politics and pay to play thing, it's just that we're resigned to it. You should understand the difference best, because as a Republican not voting for Trump: do you accept Trump as your party's nominee, or are you just resigned to the fact that he is?

It's still not something that we should be resigned over either.

We need to maintain vigilant because this high officials are presumed with some level of trust. Things like these simply erodes that trust.

**Dreadwinter**

Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

**Ustrello**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Okay, so we should be alarmed about the emails because this sort of thing should not be happening? Even though it happens with other people, namely republicans. I believe I have got that right.

So then, why is the Supreme Court seat still vacant? This sort of thing should not be happening. The only argument we have ever gotten for why they refuse to do their job is that "there is a precedent." When we look back, we see that there really isn't one and what they are referring to is something that everybody agrees is something that should not happen. So my question to you, Whembly, is why are you not opposing the current Republican congress for doing this? Why are you not talking about this as much as you are the email scandal?

Because whembly has a deep seated hatred for anything clinton