Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators!

The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators! (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2016, 08:25 PM
 
This has to be a bigger deal than Hillary's emails:

https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinto...990#.rrfmlvjk4
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 12:30 PM
 
This is a pretty monumental endorsement. The Dallas Morning News hasn't endorsed a Democrat since FDR. And the editorial is very well stated ....

There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.

Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest.

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers.

As President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, she helped make tough calls on the Middle East and the complex struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. It's no accident that hundreds of Republican foreign policy hands back Clinton. She also has the support of dozens of top advisers from previous Republican administrations, including Henry Paulson, John Negroponte, Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft. Also on this list is Jim Glassman, the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.

Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.

Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote.
We recommend Hillary Clinton for president  | Editorials | Dallas News

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 7, 2016 at 02:04 PM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 02:01 PM
 
Her and President LIARS shitty judgement is what screwed up the middle east, while she and Bubba continue to run a corrupt 'foundation' for influence peddling.
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 02:10 PM
 
I'm not disagreeing with you regarding their mis handling of the ME, but just wondering if in your opinion there is a President who HAS handled the ME correctly? Seems a powder keg with many conflicting interests, and there simply is no one correct path. Having Colin Powell making the head of ISIS much much more important than he actually was when speaking at the UN was surely a blunder, but that's hindsight, and surely other past administrations all have their own blunders.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 06:22 PM
 
Okay, there are actually some good points here:

25 Logical Reasons to Vote for Donald Trump
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Okay, there are actually some good points here:

25 Logical Reasons to Vote for Donald Trump
No need to click.
#1: Trump is not a tool of the globalists and the Clintons are.
#2-25: see #1
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 06:40 PM
 
I guess Trump owes Bubba some royalties.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No need to click.
#1: Trump is not a tool of the globalists and the Clintons are.
#2-25: see #1
Much better to vote for a tool of Putin. Plus whoever else he undoubtedly owes money to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No need to click.
#1: Trump is not a tool of the globalists and the Clintons are.
#2-25: see #1
Ironically, I think this points to Trump's problem.

Let's say Hillary coughs a little too hard and her skin falls off to reveal the lizard underneath. Like in V.

Biden steps in. He's a Democrat, so he's going to act like a globalist tool.
Maybe Kaine steps in. Guess what, he's going to be a globalist tool also.
How's about Bernie? YUGE globalist tool.

What's the takeaway? Even though Lizzie is by far the most powerful humanoid in the room, she's still constrained to within a set of parameters, just like the others.

Trump isn't constrained by parameters, which isn't inherently a problem, but puts almost the entire onus upon the individual.

The reason I can play musical chairs with the Democrats is because their parameters are defined by a coherent philosophy they all share. Trump is still struggling to define one for himself at 70.

For the bet of being unconstrained by parameters, Trump has failed even to meet the ante.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Much better to vote for a tool of Putin. Plus whoever else he undoubtedly owes money to.
You can say the Clintons owe their allegiance to the Saudis and the othe ME despots that have donated hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can say the Clintons owe their allegiance to the Saudis and the othe ME despots that have donated hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation.
I'm sorry but this has long since passed into the territory of utter nonsense. The Clintons don't even take a salary from the foundation. They "owe their allegiance" to the Saudis who donate money that they give away??? GTFOOH!!!!

Criticize ole Slick Willie for making $18 million as the "honorary chancellor" for a for-profit university. Or for cashing in on his time as POTUS with his extremely lucrative speaking fees. But going after the Clinton Foundation is a bridge too far given the evidence on the table.

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm sorry but this has long since passed into the territory of utter nonsense. The Clintons don't even take a salary from the foundation. They "owe their allegiance" to the Saudis who donate money that they give away??? GTFOOH!!!!

Criticize ole Slick Willie for making $18 million as the "honorary chancellor" for a for-profit university. Or for cashing in on his time as POTUS with his extremely lucrative speaking fees. But going after the Clinton Foundation is a bridge too far given the evidence on the table.

OAW
Reports are only 10% of the Foundation money gets distributed. Where does the other 90% go? Administrative costs?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 10:25 PM
 
If the situation is it would look so bad for her to maintain ties with the Foundation as President they're going to sever her involvement if she wins, that kinda sorta makes me lean towards her current involvement failing the "sacrosanct" test.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can say the Clintons owe their allegiance to the Saudis and the othe ME despots that have donated hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation.
But where is there any sign of pandering to them?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
But where is there any sign of pandering to them?
Hillary panders to them by her silence, just like the feminists do by their silence on how women are treated under sharia.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Reports are only 10% of the Foundation money gets distributed. Where does the other 90% go? Administrative costs?
OMG!!! The Clinton Foundation is NOT setup as a "pass through" fundraising operation. You are right. Approximately 10% of the funds raised go to external charities. The reason for this is because it is setup to conduct its own internal charitable operations.

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.

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.
Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go? | FactCheck.org

Like I said. There are plenty of legitimate political attacks you can make against the Clintons. After all as two attorneys they are quite skilled at pushing the limits of their power and influence as far as they can without technically crossing the line into illegality. But the Clinton Foundation fundraising activities is simply NOT one of them.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 7, 2016 at 11:09 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Like I said. There are plenty of legitimate political attacks you can make against the Clintons
I'm going to start keeping a tally of how many times this has to be said between now and the election.

1) seizure gate: at least once
2) coughing gate: at least once
3) neurological condition from her concussion: at least once
4) CGI: 1

I bet we could come up with literally a dozen substantive things we could all agree upon are a thing. She's been around for 239048230948 years, this is not hard.

You. People. Are. Too. Smart. For. Tabloid. Fluff.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2016, 11:54 PM
 
Wait, the biggest problem with Hillary is globalism now? Ha ha, if Obama couldn't do it 8 years what makes anyone think she can? This is ****ing Alex Jones nonsense.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, the biggest problem with Hillary is globalism now? Ha ha, if Obama couldn't do it 8 years what makes anyone think she can? This is ****ing Alex Jones nonsense.
Is globalism a destination which is reached and then go "job's done"?

Since Trump appears (as much as one can tell with him) to have staked out hardline nationalist territory, I think it's a fair contrast.

I'd probably end up on "team globalist", and welcome our New World Order. Put that in your Jade Helm and smoke it.

(Not you personally. I'm assuming you already take the murder pills)
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Much better to vote for a tool of Putin. Plus whoever else he undoubtedly owes money to.
There's not even a scrap of proof WRT to that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 06:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There's not even a scrap of proof WRT to that.
It seems the same is true of claiming Hillary is a shill for SA.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Hillary panders to them by her silence, just like the feminists do by their silence on how women are treated under sharia.
So Trump must have been attacking them regularly then?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So Trump must have been attacking them regularly then?
You haven't been paying attention.
On Tuesday, the Trump campaign said the foundation had accepted between approximately $21.3 million and $65.5 million from the governments of countries with "policies hostile toward women's rights, gay rights and human rights," including Algeria, Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Friends of Saudi Arabia organization and the Zayeds, the ruling family of the Emirates

Read more: Clinton Foundation scandals will be good fodder for Trump - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Trump also mentioned this in his RNC speech, and in several television appearances.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You haven't been paying attention.


Trump also mentioned this in his RNC speech, and in several television appearances.
Is that an attack on those nations? I'm sure at least a few would admit they aren't fond of giving women any more rights.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 10:09 AM
 
Ew.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is globalism a destination which is reached and then go "job's done"?

Since Trump appears (as much as one can tell with him) to have staked out hardline nationalist territory, I think it's a fair contrast.

I'd probably end up on "team globalist", and welcome our New World Order. Put that in your Jade Helm and smoke it.

(Not you personally. I'm assuming you already take the murder pills)
If by globalism he means one world government, yes.
     
RobOnTheCape
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Martha's Vineyard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 06:32 PM
 
Has anyone asked Trump "You say you have a plan to defeat ISIS, and once elected you will divulge your plan. If it is true you have a plan, how can you, as an American, sit on this plan while American service people are dying while we wait for your plan. Where is your patriotism, and why are you dangling a plan while Americans are dying?" I find it baffling if this hasn't been asked, and would love to watch him as he replies.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 06:35 PM
 
His plan for that, like all of his plans, require him.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape View Post
Has anyone asked Trump "You say you have a plan to defeat ISIS, and once elected you will divulge your plan. If it is true you have a plan, how can you, as an American, sit on this plan while American service people are dying while we wait for your plan. Where is your patriotism, and why are you dangling a plan while Americans are dying?" I find it baffling if this hasn't been asked, and would love to watch him as he replies.
I heard he has a good plan. He has a really good plan. He has a great plan. He will beat ISIS so fast, you have to be careful not to blink for otherwise you'd miss it. That's how good his plan is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2016, 11:15 PM
 
I think last night he said:

He will defeat them by taking the oil
He will defeat ISIS by listening to generals to get a plan
He has a plan to defeat ISIS but its a secret
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 12:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think last night he said:

He will defeat them by taking the oil
He will defeat ISIS by listening to generals to get a plan
He has a plan to defeat ISIS but its a secret
Also, he was told by this one cop how to end crime, and that this cop had a plan. Trump didn't ask what it was, but that's not important, he'll hire him after he gets elected.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It seems the same is true of claiming Hillary is a shill for SA.
Show where Putin has simply handed over 10s of $millions$ to Trump, as SA has done with Hillary (along with several other ME countries). The latter should be enough to disqualify any person from being POTUS, because even if she divorces herself from the Clinton Foundation after the fact, that money will always be a benefit to her family. The only honest thing to do is for the Clintons to give every dollar of it back (snowball's chance in hell of that happening).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 12:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Ew.

I don't see what's wrong there, kids commonly use fathers as furniture.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 01:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm sorry but this has long since passed into the territory of utter nonsense. The Clintons don't even take a salary from the foundation. They "owe their allegiance" to the Saudis who donate money that they give away??? GTFOOH!!!!

Criticize ole Slick Willie for making $18 million as the "honorary chancellor" for a for-profit university. Or for cashing in on his time as POTUS with his extremely lucrative speaking fees. But going after the Clinton Foundation is a bridge too far given the evidence on the table.

OAW
As always, plenty on uninformed nonsense.

Good job staying true to form. *golfclap*

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 05:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
As always, plenty on uninformed nonsense.

Good job staying true to form. *golfclap*

-t
Yeah. Ok.

OUR RULING

Rosen said, "The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it."

Rosen’s claim is correct on its face. The Clintons do not take any sort of paycheck, bonus or fees from the Clinton Foundation.


It is possible the foundation has boosted the Clintons’ public image since Bill Clinton left office, and this has helped them command hefty speaker fees and book advances, and it’s also given them extra opportunities to mingle with the global elite. But they may have gotten these benefits even without the Clinton Foundation. Their celebrity primarily comes from their track record in politics.

We rate her claim Mostly True.
The Clintons 'take no salary,' get 'no personal benefit' from foundation | PolitiFact.com

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 06:59 AM
 
So, WHO is getting the money from all those SPEAKING FEES?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, WHO is getting the money from all those SPEAKING FEES?
The Clintons are. Primarily Bill. But that is a completely separate operation than the Clinton Foundation. As I said earlier this is a more legitimate issue when it comes to political criticism. Are there donors that write one check to the foundation because they support making HIV treatments affordable around the world ... and write another check to Bill for him to speak at one of their functions? I would imagine so. But if you are going to make a political attack then the more legitimate avenue is the brazenness and scope of the Clinton's post-presidency "cash-in". Without a doubt Slick Willie got paid! Like nearly all senior elected officials do when they leave office. But he made money hand over fist.

OTOH attacking the Clinton Foundation which by all objective measures is a well-run charity doing good work around the world is just political amateur hour. Do you really think that angle of attack will persuade an undecided voter living in suburbia in a swing state to vote against Clinton? Or is it more likely to insulate her from more legitimate attacks because they get lost in all the noise of the "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" approach coming from the right?

OAW
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 09:50 AM
 
You mean like posting pics of Ivanka sitting on her dad's lap and imply that he's banging her?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post

OTOH attacking the Clinton Foundation which by all objective measures is a well-run charity

OAW
Muahahahahahahahaha

I hope you threw up in your mouth when typing this.

Concentrating on Clinton Foundation Facts - Charles Ortel

[...] numerous detailed Exhibits will examine the known public record of the Clinton Charity Network within the context of applicable state, federal, and foreign laws.
Read the exhibits. It's public records.

Well-run charity my ass.

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 07:08 PM
 
Cross posting

Yeah, he's hawking his book...
Dick Morris explains the how the Clinton foundation came about.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...&id=8057684437
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Muahahahahahahahaha

I hope you threw up in your mouth when typing this.

Concentrating on Clinton Foundation Facts - Charles Ortel



Read the exhibits. It's public records.

Well-run charity my ass.

-t
While you link to some random dude's blog ... I'll offer up what TWO professional charity watchdog organizations have to say about it.



https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478



https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
While you link to some random dude's blog ... I'll offer up what TWO professional charity watchdog organizations have to say about it.



https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478



https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680

OAW

FWIW the Gates foundation has also donated more than 25M to the CGI:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2016, 11:13 PM
 
Well, there's no love for the Clinton Foundation in Haiti.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2016, 03:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't see what's wrong there, kids commonly use fathers as furniture.
I feel it's a shot on the cheaper side of the spectrum.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2016, 11:06 AM
 
I kind of agree that this is a "fluffy" issue, but in context of his other Ivanka comments it looks... skeevy. Perhaps it's a combo of her age, her 80's short shorts (of course what she wears shouldn't matter, she is a kid) which make me uncomfortable. At that age I wouldn't have sat on my father's knee, not wearing that. Both he and I would have been uncomfortable.

This reflects a certain amount of new england prudishness, of course.

Would we be similarly critical of a similar picture of Bill and Chelsea, W and Jenna, or less controversially, Jimmy Carter and Amy?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2016, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I kind of agree that this is a "fluffy" issue, but in context of his other Ivanka comments it looks... skeevy.
Only because you dislike Trump, that's definitely coloring your view of this.


First: Why not ask Hillary if she would date Chelsea?
Two: She's very attractive, funny, intelligent, and independent. 99% of men would date Ivanka, despite possible age differences, at least he was being honest about it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2016, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I don't see what's wrong there, kids commonly use fathers as furniture.
Young kids, sure. 15 year old girls in public, not so much.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2016, 02:12 AM
 
Yes, the possible Trump incest is a dumb topic. His infatuation with Ivanka's looks could be because that's pretty much the only criteria he measures women by.

I will say that seeing what looks like a 15 year-old girl sitting on her Dad's lap in public is a bit weird.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2016, 07:46 AM
 
I found the pic under the description "grinding" on her dad's lap.

Anyway here is caring guy and patriot Trump's words from 11th September 2001:

"40 Wall Street," he said, referring to his 71-story building blocks away from the now-collapsed twin towers, "actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually, before the World Trade Center, was the tallest-and then, when they built the World Trade Center, it became known as the second-tallest. And now it's the tallest."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2016, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Young kids, sure. 15 year old girls in public, not so much.
That's absurd.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yes, the possible Trump incest is a dumb topic. His infatuation with Ivanka's looks could be because that's pretty much the only criteria he measures women by.
Possible? WTF? And you say the Right are conspiracy theorists?

I will say that seeing what looks like a 15 year-old girl sitting on her Dad's lap in public is a bit weird.
My sister sat on my dad's lap on her wedding day, and she was 24.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,