Why Hillary can't be President

[Frederick Foresight]

Your mo never changes, you accuse other people of viewing things through a partisan lens while you view yourself as the ultimate bipartisan observer, while you only ever end up on one side of the coin time after time after time. I have seen GWB switch up his view on things alot more than ive ever seen from you, so im going to have to say if anyone is actually analyzing the details of this case, and not just viewing it as a partisan, that person would have to be GWB.

Read the posts. I said I'm biased. gwb-trading's mind is clearly made up. He as much as said so. He has his own bias. I said that if any actual, concrete evidence of wrongdoing surfaces, then I will change my mind accordingly. But not until then. And, aside from innuendo and wishful thinking, it is not there yet. I remember the swiftboat saga. Do you? Kerry was cleared of all allegations when it was already too late.

Seriously, if you can't comprehend such basic information, how do you expect to understand anything remotely complex?

 

[jem]

so fred... does those info below concern you?
is it accurate?
how do you know?

does the fact that Putin and friends go control of uranium minds after donating concern you?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

When conclusions are reached by a genuine arbiter, rather than a party that won't be dictated to by fact checkers, then I will take notice. I won't pretend to know the context of those allegations or their veracity. I just know that you pin your hopes and dreams on them.

jem, you're the guy who said that I "don't get it" when I said that you don't need religion to nurture empathy, which is at the heart of morality, in a normal child who has the capacity for it. How, then, can I possibly accept any conclusion you arrive at? Or your sources.

For now, and until there is something I can hang my hat on, I will go with this:

On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

• The article also states that "in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies."

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#watchlist

If there was any immoral or legal wrongdoing on Clinton's part, and it is a legitimate conclusion based on solid evidence and arrived at by those other than guys like you with an axe to grind, then I will agree that she should take herself out of the race. But not until then.

 

[gwb-trading]

When conclusions are reached by a genuine arbiter, rather than a party that won't be dictated to by fact checkers, then I will take notice. I won't pretend to know the context of those allegations or their veracity. I just know that you pin your hopes and dreams on them.

jem, you're the guy who said that I "don't get it" when I said that you don't need religion to nurture empathy, which is at the heart of morality, in a normal child who has the capacity for it. How, then, can I possibly accept any conclusion you arrive at? Or your sources.

For now, and until there is something I can hang my hat on, I will go with this:

On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs."

• The article also states that "in posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies."

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#watchlist

If there was any immoral or legal wrongdoing on Clinton's part, and it is a legitimate conclusion based on solid evidence and arrived at by those other than guys like you with an axe to grind, then I will agree that she should take herself out of the race. But not until then.

New York Magazine (which is a liberal publication) did a in-depth article on the "The Clinton Foundation’s Behind-the-Scenes Battle With a Charity Watchdog Group". I would urge you to read this article and get some perspective.

In this situation I am simply following the facts. The facts on the percentage of charitable spending (below 10%) and its expenses can be found in the yearly filings. Any "charity" which gives away under 10% of the money it collects to the needy is not fit to be called a "charity" - in fact the Clinton Foundation gives less money to charity than most telemarketing scam "charities". Here is the link to the financial report page on the Clinton Foundation website - feel free to go through the reports.

Do i think that this charity situation will cause Clinton to withdraw from the race? No. Is it indicative of the absurd money situation that is prevalent across American national politics? Yes.

PACS, SuperPACS, 527s, 501(c)(4)s, now "charitable" Foundations.... endless sources of campaign cash.


Super-PACs and Dark Money: ProPublica’s Guide to the New World of Campaign Finance
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item...as-guide-to-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance

 

[jem]

1. charitynavigator now says this at your link...


Why isn't this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

2. this is what your actually wrote...

"Religion does not instill a moral compass. Morality does not stem from the fear of a deity's retribution. The very premise is corrupt. And so, you don't need fantastical sky creatures to nurture empathy in a normal child who has the capacity for it. And empathy is at the very heart of morality."


to which I replied you don't get it.
and you still don't. apparently.

Because religion can and does instill a moral compass in many.
And as plato would tell you about the perfect form in the cave... one might argue morality stems from as close to an adherence to Natural Law or those perfect forms as possible. much of the history of jurisprudence is tied to the search for Natural Law by jurists... and then weighing behavior and written law against it.

Many influential jurists were concerned about right and wrong and natural law and natural law and society mores do influence most people's moral compass.

I could go on and on... and get into the history of the protestant revolution and individual rights and moral compass...

but lets just say...

your statement -- manifested... a did not get it vibe.

finally there are numerous times... empathy does not fit well with doing what is morally correct.

this empathy argument leftists typically argue as a substitute for a moral compass instilled and informed by objective truth and a Creator... is typically a flawed argument.

but you are welcome to make it. ( note I already am aware of the the flaws with my sides argument as well.)

 

[gwb-trading]

1. charitynavigator now says this at your link...


Why isn't this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Apparently he does not read the top of the page. Keep in mind that the day this was posted on Charity Navigator, the CEO and several other employees quit in protest.

 

[Max E.]

Apparently he does not read the top of the page. Keep in mind that the day this was posted on Charity Navigator, the CEO and several other employees quit in protest.

There is more than enough circumstantial evidence here to say that at the very least the Clintons are running a sleazy operation here, Freddy is choosing to leave his blinders on because hes a liberal and he supports Hillary Clinton, basically he is saying that he will change his opinion if and only if there is a conviction, something we all know will never happen. Obama's justice department is never going to go after the Clinton's she could be caught standing over a dead body with the murder weapon in her hand and obama wouldnt prosecute her, so basically hes just saying he supports Hillary no matter what. Its clearly quid pro quo and without Hillary actually admitting that she did it, how do you prove it? She already made sure to destroy all her emails.

This is precisely why people in government arent supposed to be having charities, and their emails are supposed to be on government servers two rules Hillary flagrantly ignored because she thinks shes above the law.

 

[Spike Trader]

All is fair in love and war , Maxi.

 

[BSAM]

After the FIASCO called Barack Obama; how in the world any person with one brain cell working could vote for Hitlery Clinton, is almost beyond belief.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

gwb-trading, since you posted a link to their site, have a look at the very bottom of this page of their site:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

2013 Expenditures: Programs, 88.4%; Mgmt. & General, 7%; Fundraising, 4.6%.

Looks good to me.

I've looked at their 2013 financials, including the notes. Tell me what looks off to you, and explain to me how it should be different. Please give me an example, with supporting financials together with notes as provided by the Clinton Foundation, of what you believe to be a properly run foundation for comparative purposes.