We’re having a really, really special election this year
(The Hill) Half of all voters say they definitely won’t consider voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to a new Morning Consult poll.
The poll also found that 45 percent of voters said they definitely wouldn’t consider voting for Clinton.
The number for Trump is exactly 50%, to be clear, once you check the link.
As you can see, Hillary leads in the definitely will vote for category 35-29%. The numbers are marginally bad, but, here’s something to consider in Trump’s favor
Among independents, 23 percent said they supported Clinton and 30 percent said they backed Trump.
Here’s the thing: this election should have been relatively easy, with the Democrats nominating one of the worst candidates of all time. She’s shadier and more paranoid than Richard Nixon, yet doesn’t even have the accomplishments of things like important legislation than Nixon. Her charitable foundation barely spends 10% on charity, and is more of a slush fund for the Clinton’s who also use it as a pay for play system with foreign governments and private entities. She has less transparency than Obama. Her health is most likely poor. She’s unexciting and really doesn’t like speaking to crowds. She treated the press like garbage, and has even smacked around her own supporters.
Yet. Trump. There may be time, but, it’s very limited.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
This election literally should have been a slam dunk for the GOP but of course they let their intense anger overwhelm their brains and voted for TRUMP who was saying EVERYTHING THE RIGHT HAS WANTED TO SAY FOR 2 DECADES NOW…..
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is so frustrating…..and stupid. And I think this is the single reason why Trump ran away with the GOP nomination.
Its unfortunate he has proven himself to be as incompetent as his opponent in the upcoming election…..My guess is third party candidates get 10 percent of this years vote.
It might even be enough to let Trump win after all as more and more Bernie Sanders voters claim they are voting green party or supporting Trump as opposed to Hillary and the DNC who they feel ROBBED THEM and their Candidate…..
In 2013 about 89% of the Clinton Foundation spending was designated as going toward charitable programs.
They spent 222 million, 196 went directly to programs.
If the Clinton’s DID wish to enrich themselves, they would remain in the private sector.
Sez who? Show me the independent audit and the IRS forms.
If the Clinton’s DID wish to enrich themselves, they would remain in the private sector.
The Clinton Foundation is audited yearly.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports
They have an A-rating from Charity Watch, giving a program percentage of 88% for 2015.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
You’re welcome.
Most of the Clintons’ money comes from giving speeches. The amount they charge is in line with other celebrity speeches. For instance, you can get Ben Stiller, Harrison Ford, and Helen Mirren for about $250,000. George Clooney brings in over half-a-million dollars. This is well-within the budget of any large corporation or concern who typically spend millions on executive meetings.
One can argue this creates too close a nexus between money and power, but it is certainly not illegal or even unethical. Of course, Republicans have worked especially hard to ensure there are no restrictions on such activities.
They said the same thing in ’80.
“This election literally should have been a slam dunk for the GOP but of course they let their intense anger overwhelm their brains and voted for TRUMP who was saying EVERYTHING THE RIGHT HAS WANTED TO SAY FOR 2 DECADES NOW…..
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is so frustrating…..and stupid.”
Yes, they could have nominated the One True Ted who’d be whining abot how mean Hillary was being to him, or Little Marco who’d just cave.
The 2013 Clinton Foundation tax return is here…http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf
I’m only seeing 8.8 million in charitable gifts, about 10% in expenses on line 13.
That represents contributions to other agencies. While foundation is in the name, the Clinton Foundation primarily engages in direct charitable actions.
“the Clinton Foundation primarily engages in direct charitable actions.”
Where are they listed on the tax return?
z,
Every thing you have written is a lie!! I took the time to look up the information and the Clinton Foundation is not even rated by the better charity sites. On top of that, you are way off in your saying stuff about the distribution of funds. The best estimate that I can find and this is to direct payouts to individuals, is 30%. But most people quote 10%. Now, certainly their speeches may be pricy, and some people ask but don’t receive the money that you quoted. The fact is that the Clintons give a speech for about $500,000 and shortly thereafter nice things come from the government. Now, even a liberal can see that if they want to. But that is not all. There are list of the worst of the worst countries pouring billions into the foundation. I can’t believe that people on the left are so low that they will act as shills for the Clintons who are clearly as dirty as it gets. Oh, and that last sentence came from someone high in the Sanders camp. Note that Sanders sold out as well.
They spent 10% on travel. 33% on salaries and benefits. So, right there, we’re well under than 89% number.
John knows internally that if a Republican was being as shady as the Clinton’s, basically using a charity as a personal slush fund, he’d be slamming them.
The Clinton Foundation reports are very well done and show precisely what they want the public to see. I read something similar about an offering from Enron three months before it imploded. I’m talking about an independent audit. Likewise Charity Watch is based on information provided by the Foundation not independents.
I find the corruption and play for pay aura around the Foundation and the Clintons rather meteoric rise in astronomical wealth more than coincidental. The very idea they received funding from countries who are shady and who proselytize the killing of Christians Jews and gays, slavery, women as chattel and female genital mutilation has a nefarious odor. Nobody goes from “Zero, dead broke” when they left the White House to 130million in 16 years giving speeches.
How many scandals and how many “appearances of impropriety” do the Clintons need before you leftists realize they are no good?? Now Hillary! is blaming her private email problems on Colin Powell. So now it’s okay for a rich white bitch-of-privilege to blame an older black man for her crimes?
You Clintonites are like Trumpers. No matter what she does, no matter how bad she is, no matter how corrupt she gets you have your nose up her butt. I don’t understand why. There are good democrats out there why do you guys love this grifter?
Here’s the actual charity funding:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UpaN1QytIhc/V7iG0N84tPI/AAAAAAABBVQ/bPeGYibRWAgU87xQSYEjcRk6aDjXvYx3ACLcB/s640/1%2B1%2B1%2B1ninetymilesqD14g1r54qfqo1_540.jpg
Teach did you expect the [ep[le working for the Clinton Foundation which do wonderful work in Africa on AIDS and malaria to pay for their own work related travel?
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
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.â€
“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.).â€
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 expensesâ€; 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.
Charity Navigator estimated 80%+ goes to charity
We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.
The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.
She referred us to page 10 of the 2013 990 form for the Clinton Foundation. When considering the amount spent on “charitable work,†she said, one would look not just at the amount in grants given to other charities, but all of the expenses in Column B for program services. That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)
Give it up John, you’re now arguing with yourself.
You initially wrote that “In 2013 about 89% of the Clinton Foundation spending was designated as going toward charitable programs.”
You later quoted the biased factcheck stating “charitable work,†comes to 80.6 percent of spending.
The “charitable programs” you initially mentioned has now turned into “The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.”
Right, This must be like Hillary, donating 10% of her income to charity, her own clinton foundation.
Under “program services”.
* We stated they were audited, a true statement.
* We stated that Charity Watch gave the Foundation an A-rating, a true statement.
The fact that other charity watch groups don’t provide a rating isn’t evidence one way or the other.
No. Most people don’t quote 10% as the percentage of charitable spending. Most people in the right-wing echochamber repeat that number without regard to whether the number is correct.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Sure, about the same as George Clooney gets.
We’ve already granted the problem of the close nexus of money and political power. Republicans have worked especially hard to ensure there are no restrictions on such activities.
When people are hired to travel to poor countries to help the poor or distressed, those are called “program expenses”. How did you think it worked?
Be happy to look at actual evidence, rather than vague accusations. The charity has been subject to various audits. Most analysts have found that they are spending about 90% on charitable activities.
We provided that information. The Clinton Foundation is audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
They also wrote books, and serve on corporate boards. In any case, at $250 thousand a pop, that’s about a thousand speeches between two people. That averages out to about thirty speeches a year per person. Not bad work — if you can get it.
How many times do you think someone can cry wolf before people should ignore them?
Fact-check: That comes to 80.6 percent of spending. (The higher 89 percent figure we cited earlier comes from a CharityWatch analysis of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.)
Gosh, if the Clinton Foundation is doing such good work, why this?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/18/clinton-foundation-will-not-accept-foreign-corporate-donations-hillary-elected/
And by the way, how’s the Clinton Foundation helping all those poor flooding victims in Louisiana?
Oh, forgot LA is going with Trump 2016.
If one doesn’t accept facts as a counter-argument there’s little basis for debate, is there?
By every measure the Clinton Foundation distributes at least 80% of their funds to charity. Teach and the right-wing echo chamber repeatedly claim 10%.
Donald J. Trump is the perfect candidate for the far-right in this post-truth world.
Because there could be an appearance of impropriety.
The Clinton Foundation’s primary focus is improving global health and wellness, not disaster relief.
Oh really?
<blockquote? In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
According to Judicial Watch it amounts to little more than a slush fund:
As the money keeps rollin’ along.
Oh I don’t know, about as many times as an otherwise intelligent person can support an obviously corrupt liar for political office.
D’Souza? Really? Let’s take the first specific claim:
“Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States. Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti.”
The claim doesn’t concern just the Clinton Foundation, but the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, as well. Really? The Clinton Foundation provided just $0.03 billion of the $10 billion spent on Haiti relief.
If you were to argue that relief efforts were poorly implemented, sure. The U.N., especially, has to improve their disaster response, especially for long-term rebuilding. But that’s not the argument you are making.
Hoagie: Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.
Welcome to America!
If you think laws should be strengthened to reduce the influence on money on politics, keep in mind that it has been Republicans that have consistently defended the influence of money on the power structures in the U.S.
That’s the point, of course. You keep claiming she is criminally corrupt, but the accusations never amount to much of anything beyond the corruption inherent in politics.
If you think laws should be strengthened to reduce the influence on money on politics, keep in mind that it has been Republicans that have consistently defended the influence of money on the power structures in the U.S.
This is because the GOP looked around and realized that people Like George Soros were single handedly funding dozens of very powerful PAC’s to influence elections and the congressional actions.
INITIALLY it is reported that Democrats receive more of this big money from wall street and UNIONS then do the GOP….If anything the LEFT should be thanking the GOP for their actions.
Today another 14,900 Emails were found that CLINTON had not turned over…..sometimes it goes beyond just lying which all politicians do…..this woman is a habitual liar and even lied in the face of a justice department and FBI probe into possible criminal and treasonous investigation.
There is nothing CROOKED HILLARY will not do and its so evident that she went to the FBI and JUSTICE Departments and told the heads of both they will be her appointees if they just make this investigation go away.
YOU are justifying her actions….YOU are every bit as guilty of enabling the left to be the liars, cheats and thiefs they have turned out to be……
Good job….Keep on dangling participles and rephrasing metaphors to make sure you side wins in november…..then spend the next two years bitching when they DO NOTHING THEY PROMISED.
z,
The Clintons are dirty. You can try as hard as possible to make them look good, but they ain’t. The little foundation is a pay for play business that shields them from taxes and direct observation of their activities. If you are a big socialist, like it appears that you are, then why do you do everything possible to excuse the behavior of this scum and elevate them to a social status above you? It does not make sense. At the end of the day, Hillary is a liar, a crook, a corrupted official and terribly incompetent. Her tenure at State was a disaster and her incompetence there killed 4 people. By any measure, she should be in jail.
Well, Zac, they just came up with another 14,900 emails of Hillary’s. Please tell me when enough is enough. Even you, a completely brainwashed true believer, can say this is right. Or can you? I guess how entrenched the leftist religion has washed your brain.
So you’re saying that Republicans work to weaken laws concerning accountability in order to enable Soros.
You’re just making stuff up.
There are a number of important issues of accountability involved with the Clintons, but those can’t be addressed by making stuff up.
Z,
No one is making stuff up, more like putting lipstick on a pig. She needs to be in jail.
Z-boys,
Y’all need to read the whole article, then dispute it.
Y’all made the claim…
D’SOUSA disputes that claim and makes the case that the Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons’ foundation and backed it up with facts.
So far, y’all have disproved nothing and fail to prove your original claim.
Mr. Trump is cancelling campaign events. Perhaps he’s just too tired. Or too sick.
Comment by Zachriel
YOU are excusing criminal conduct on the grounds she is a politician….YOU ARE AN ENABLER.
So you’re saying that Republicans work to weaken laws concerning accountability in order to enable Soros.
Excuse me. HOW DID THE GOP pass this legislation when they barely had a working majority and Harry Reid blocked everything.
In fact MCCAIN/FEINGOLD combined to write the law…a bipartisan effort which was then pissed on by Michael Moore with FAHRENHEIT 9/11. In response the right chose to make a movie entitled Hillary: The movie which then forced this into the courts.
Citizens United…..Was indeed a conservative group which was refused the same privledges that the left and Michael Moore received.
Learn your facts before you just spout crap. You sound reasonable….but here your just nothing more then a criminal enabler.
YOU are an enabler….It is people like you who enable these bastard politicans to do what ever the hell they want.
Thats why Im on record as saying I cannot vote for Trump on Principal.
You should try having some principals when it comes to politics and perhaps we really as a nation could clean up this cesspool.
There’s a process for that.
F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton
We did read the entire article. It’s filled with mistruths and half-truths. We dealt with the first claim. The claim is based on Haiti relief. The Clinton Foundation only provided a very small proportion of the relief funds, so the complaint is really with the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Much of the relief effort was squandered due to mismanagement. To address this problem requires looking at what actually happened, not making stuff up.
Not at all. We believe there’s a process for determining criminal responsibility.
FBI Won’t Recommend Criminal Charges Against Hillary Clinton
Not at all. We believe there’s a process for determining criminal responsibility.
LOLOL your a piece of work. Who do you work for? The DNC or Clinton?
How much shit have you had to eat this past 6 months trying to keep Hillarys good name from sinking like a rock in the cesspool of politics?
YOU sir are an Enabler…anyone with half a brain understands when Bill Clinton boards a plane with the DOJ head and then the DOJ says no charges to be brought…….
Well 1 plus 1 equals millions in an offshore bank account probably stuck their by the Clinton foundation.
Yeah right!
No chance that the “process” was compromised or rigged like Trump said.
Comey even admitted that if anyone committing those same “careless” actions would be prosecuted.
Waving your hands furiously doesn’t substitute for evidence.
There’s no evidence that career FBI investigators were somehow compromised or rigged.
Mr. Trump’s latest on the “rigged” elections:
Yes Mr.
George WallaceTrump, we know what you’re talking about.So y’all think there’s no problem with the emails that were stonewalled by Hillary and State for 3 years.
http://www.nationalreview.com/happening/439279/clinton-foundation-over-half-hillarys-meetings-state-were-its-donors
Y’all talk of hand waving about the ‘process’…
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/291796-comeys-legal-error-undermines-law-enforcement-with-clinton-defense
Now this from the worlds most corrupt politician. This b!tch makes Imelda Marcos look like Mother Theresa. Anyone supporting this grifter has no morality and no ethics.
Hoagie,
What do you mean when you call someone a bitch? Is every woman you don’t like a “bitch”?
And you accidently forgot to cite your source for the opinion piece.
The only reason Secretary Clinton is a viable candidate is because the uber-rightists of the Republican Party nominated a crooked, crude sociopath as their candidate.
Hoagie,
What do you think of Trump’s flip-flopping or “softening” on deportation of “illegals”?
is because the uber-rightists of the Republican Party nominated a crooked, crude sociopath as their candidate.
And thats your reason for defending and supporting her?
I get it. You hate Trump but you defend her religiously here on these boards as if your defense here is a last ditch effort to ensure her election. She has it locked up…..If your so honorable and so full of integrity I would be bashing the Crooked, lying thief much as I have been doing vs Trump.
But I get it….you really are nothing but a troll Like Zach who claims that Hillary is innocent because a DEMOCRATIC DOJ and FBI director says NO CHARGES…..
I wonder Jeffery did that fly for you when the GOP DOJ said the patriot law was legal back under Bush and the Iraq war………lololol
Lying hypocrits.
I support Secretary Clinton because in my opinion she will make a good President based on what I know of her policy positions. I support Sec Clinton because she opposes most policy positions accepted by conservative Republicans.
She is a woman, a Democrat, more liberal than Repubs, tough, strong and a Clinton. Of course you don’t like her.
If you are interested in policy and not personality, if you’re interested in getting money out of our political system, I’m with you!
But you seem to prefer personal attacks and ransom-note capitalization to reason and evidence.
There’s nothing in the latest round of emails that indicates anything other than people vying for attention.
No. The final judgment was by the Department of Justice.
Not sure that misogyny adds anything to your position.
They didn’t justify how it was an extraordinary proportion. That would require comparing it to other secretaries in other administrations. In this case, it has to do with charitable contributions, such as money to fight AIDS. There’s little doubt that the Clintons were effective in their fundraising, so many of the powers-that-be have contributed.
There was no there there. It was and is just political harrumphing.
Laim,
Do you agree that Mr. Trump should immediately, immediately, immediately release his tax returns so that people can decide how important and deep are his financial ties to China and Russia?
Should the American people be able to see for themselves if Trump has been truthful about his financial dealings?
Clearly he calculates that hiding his tax return is less damaging than releasing them. What is he hiding? We know now that he was hiding that he owes millions to the Chinese government and to Goldman Sachs.