mockingbird_franklin Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, blandy said: What does the Clinton foundation do, Scott? - is it a charity? well depends on who you ask, the official clinton line is it provides charitable support for thrid world countries to as mentioned by OBE, if you ask people who have delved a little deeper into what it does there are many claims that its more of a money laundering, tax evasion / buddy support network type set up, plenty out there on the subject if you care to look into some of the stuff involving the Clinton foundation and Haiti it really does begin to stink of possibly being more than a little dodgy, Edited October 16, 2016 by mockingbird_franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il_serpente Posted October 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 17, 2016 Trump needs to think twice about attacking Hillary over the foundation, though. The Trump Foundation has been exposed as having paid his political bills and paid for vanity statues and the like. Clinton's perhaps smells a bit fishy at times, but Trump's is a chum bucket on open display in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 17, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2016 12 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said: plenty out there on the subject if you care to look into some of the stuff involving the Clinton foundation and Haiti it really does begin to stink of possibly being more than a little dodgy, It comes out pretty well, I think. I don't doubt for a moment that "crooked Hilary" is a fair nickname, but reading up on the Charity, it seems to be of high standard and conduct https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680 Quote Charities Performing Similar Types of Work Highly Rated Charity Name & State Overall Score Overall Rating The Clinton Foundation (NY) 94.74 Middle East Children's Alliance (CA) 87.78 Islamic Relief USA (VA) 92.38 International Children's Heart Foundation (TN) 85.85 American Relief Agency for the Horn of Africa (ARAHA) (MN) 90.71 lots more on link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I saw on the headlines last night that trump says the election is rigged as the gap between him and Clinton in the poles widens. How on gods green earth did this guy get to be 1 of the last 2 candidates for the job of most powerful person in the world? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 37 minutes ago, Genie said: I saw on the headlines last night that trump says the election is rigged as the gap between him and Clinton in the poles widens. How on gods green earth did this guy get to be 1 of the last 2 candidates for the job of most powerful person in the world? How? It turned out the majority of republican voters are his guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Genie said: I saw on the headlines last night that trump says the election is rigged as the gap between him and Clinton in the poles widens. How on gods green earth did this guy get to be 1 of the last 2 candidates for the job of most powerful person in the world? How? I'm just glad he won the Republican nomination as the other candidates were just as batshit mental plus electable, which is a scary mix. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Genie said: I saw on the headlines last night that trump says the election is rigged as the gap between him and Clinton in the poles widens. How on gods green earth did this guy get to be 1 of the last 2 candidates for the job of most powerful person in the world? How? there is a serious need for america to have a sensible discussion about their election process post election but they wont, just like every other sensible discussion they need to have and always seem incapable of doing, they're too busy believing their own propaganda 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 The Tea Party website is interesting. It gives some insight in to how some folks think over in the USA. Tea Party on Obama Quote ... Listen up. Have you suffered enough under this oppressive Obama regime? Are you sick of the lies, the deceit, the corruption, the scandals, and the tyranny? Are you willing to prepare for the next battle America must win? ... Obama is stripping our rights…he’s blaspheming ... The fact that Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist is old news. Most critical now is that he’s actively gun-grabbing, and trying to install a Soviet-style socialist state, ... Patriots, we are under attack by the president of the United States of America! His idea of “fundamental change” is warped, sick and twisted. We must act now. ...Our ONE MILLION HOUSEHOLD campaign worked so well in recent months together we literally stopped the complete takeover of America. Now it’s time to fire it up even more. Let’s lock and load Patriots! All the above from one page. On another page they are fund raising to get as many children gun trained as soon as possible before communist Hussein Obama seizes all the bullets. They're not as popular as they once were, it looks like as an idea it peaked a few years ago, but they still make up a significant part of the republican party and around 1 in 10 of all americans identify with their aims and politics. So when you wonder how on earth a dickhead like Trump can be in with a shout of being President. That's a small part of the answer. There are millions of americans out there willing to vote against health care reform as it's a communist blasphemers trap to take people's guns from them. **** yeah! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 10 hours ago, Genie said: I saw on the headlines last night that trump says the election is rigged as the gap between him and Clinton in the poles widens. How on gods green earth did this guy get to be 1 of the last 2 candidates for the job of most powerful person in the world? How? programme starting now on BBC 1 Paxman asking wtf has happened that the choice is 'so awful' could be interesting.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 17, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 17, 2016 To think, we laughed at the likes of Nixon and Reagan. They seem like towering figures of statesmanship and integrity by comparison with today's candidates. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 37 minutes ago, mjmooney said: To think, we laughed at the likes of Nixon and Reagan. They seem like towering figures of statesmanship and integrity by comparison with today's candidates. Did you really just unfavourably compare Clinton to Richard Nixon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 12 hours ago, blandy said: It comes out pretty well, I think. I don't doubt for a moment that "crooked Hilary" is a fair nickname, but reading up on the Charity, it seems to be of high standard and conduct https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680 lots more on link Apparently the charity has never been audited to an appropriate standard, and it's estimated £100 billion has flowed through the foundation, unchecked and unaccounted for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Did you really just unfavourably compare Clinton to Richard Nixon? next to Hilary, Nixon was probably a boy scout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il_serpente Posted October 18, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 18, 2016 1 hour ago, mockingbird_franklin said: next to Hilary, Nixon was probably a boy scout. Methinks you need to study history a little more. Nixon was actually doing some of the frightening things Trump has just threatened to do (e.g., using govt. agencies to do thwart political opposition, trying to find ways to squelch free expression of unfriendly journalists and publications). For all her faults, Hillary hasn't given any indication of using the machinery of government to silence or punish dissent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villaphan04 Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 the newest information has the state department trying to bribe the FBI to unclassify Clinton's emails. http://nypost.com/2016/10/17/state-department-brokered-deal-with-fbi-to-declassify-clinton-emails/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 4 hours ago, il_serpente said: Methinks you need to study history a little more. Nixon was actually doing some of the frightening things Trump has just threatened to do (e.g., using govt. agencies to do thwart political opposition, trying to find ways to squelch free expression of unfriendly journalists and publications). For all her faults, Hillary hasn't given any indication of using the machinery of government to silence or punish dissent. Didn't Nixon start the war on drugs? This quote from his aide at the time will forever be chilling. Quote "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 7 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said: next to Hilary, Nixon was probably a boy scout. Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 18, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 18, 2016 7 hours ago, mockingbird_franklin said: Apparently the charity has never been audited to an appropriate standard, and it's estimated £100 billion has flowed through the foundation, unchecked and unaccounted for. Doing a google brings up quite a few clearly bonkers conspiracy sites.....and the audited accounts for every year, done by BKD and PWC etc. available for anyone to look at, if they could tear themselves away from the crazies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 7 hours ago, il_serpente said: Methinks you need to study history a little more. Nixon was actually doing some of the frightening things Trump has just threatened to do (e.g., using govt. agencies to do thwart political opposition, trying to find ways to squelch free expression of unfriendly journalists and publications). For all her faults, Hillary hasn't given any indication of using the machinery of government to silence or punish dissent. Apart from her threat during the Lewinsky scandal to go after anyone thinking of claiming they had sexual relations with Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) I'm just going to leave this here: Quote Stop Pretending You Don’t Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton Sep 26, 2016 | Updated 6 days ago Larry Womack Writer, layabout and all-around nogoodnik; web publisher; former Associate News Editor, The Huffington Post BRIAN SNYDER / REUTERS “Why Is Clinton disliked?“ “Why the hate for Hillary?“ “Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much?“ Advertisement Is it because of partisanship? Or a hard-fought primary? Maybe, NBC once suggested, it’s because “she’s not a train wreck.” Funny how the answers seem to be everything but the obvious. We go on endlessly about how “untrustworthy” she is, while fact checkers rank her as the second-most honest prominent politician in the country. (And her opponent as by far the least.) We say that she has trouble with transparency, while her opponent refuses to release his taxes and the current administration sets records for secrecy. We decry her ties to corporations and the financial industry, while supporting a walking tax shelter or mourning the exit of a president whose re-election was funded by a record-shattering Wall Street haul. We list so very many explanations, all of them complete bullshit. In truth, the Hillary haters seem to resent her more than disagree with her. They demand to be humored and catered to. They hold her to wildly different standards than her male counterparts. They regard her with an unprecedented degree of suspicion. Above all, they really, really want to see her punished. And an aggressive male presence—even if dangerously incompetent—seems to comfort a great many of them. Everyone but them knows damn well why. Bad news for the haters: History is decidedly unafraid of “the woman card.” It doesn’t care how many people will stand on tables today and swear they’d feel the same if she were a man. It will see us for what we are—a sick society, driven by misogyny and pathetically struggling to come to terms with the fact that women do not exist solely to nurture. If that answer isn’t as nuanced as the average thinkpiece, that’s because we, as a people, are not. No matter how many branches have formed, they all emerged from the same seed, planted way back when Bill Clinton first ran for governor. She wouldn’t be so suspicious of the press, or so measured in her presentation, or so any one of a thousand other things, if she had been born a man. The lengths we go to in order to rationalize this all will be seen, in retrospect, as extraordinary. When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday. When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue. When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws: I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels. ... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server and didn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!” Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State. It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, like so many of his online “supporters,” is a goddamn Russian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up. Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet. And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left. Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing. Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton “a bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right? In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you. Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after he voted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too. And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time. It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about. Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder. What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office? Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger. We deserve the shame that we will bear. From the Huffington Post http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12191766 Edited October 18, 2016 by LondonLax 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts