2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
With Clinton, you have a known person who is a typical politician who will cover-up half-truths and lies. Even the staunchiest Dems will admit that Clinton screwed up her E-mail server issue, which to me is a huge character issue and not a security issue. If Hillary gets elected, it's the same-old, same-old politics, with nothing significant getting done in Washington and 4 to 8 more years of frustration. People who are voting for Trump are effectively not voting for Hillary. And Hillary certainly didn't help things with her alienating comments a couple of weeks ago which was a death knell for Romney with the 47% comment that he made.
On the Trump side, here is a demagogue narcissist ass***e of a businessman who got a million buck starter fund and managed to use the laws to become very rich by not being liable for his business mistakes (Atlantic City). He's sexist. He's racist. He's stupid. He's endorsed by dictators. He won't release his tax returns because it would probably show a tax rate of something like 5% and no Charitable donations. There are plenty of present scandals to dodge him as well, like Trump University, paying legal fees out of his Foundation, and so on. Yet he was able to do an end-run around 16 other GOP candidates to win the nomination. Mexico will not pay for the wall, and he will not be able to reduce crime or get rid of the terrorists nor does he have any idea of how he is going to quell terrorism. His tax plan is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion dollars.
Yet his message, "make America Great again" is a winning marketing slogan, isn't it? In fact, it's huge. Because people feel like they don't have the opportunity their parents had and feel like their children are going to be worst off. There are smidgens of terrorist attacks (which pale in comparison to gun deaths and homegrown mass shootings). There is racial unrest. People are afraid. Americans love to be afraid and act on their fears. Somehow a portion of the population believes that Trump can somehow "make the nation better" but he really has no plans except make people afraid and get on Hillary for Email and Benghazi and her Foundation. Believe me.
No one who is voting for Trump cares about any of this. They are voting for Trump because they are not voting for Hillary. Any lie that he makes doesn't compare with bringing back in a Clinton. And that's why this thing is close. Fear, and voting against Hillary.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe moderators have already said that it isn't their job to call Trump out on his lies. That wimp who pseudo-moderated the earlier semi-debate was excoriated for not doing so, but he just shrugged. So yes, Trump will lie, and no, he won't be called out for it. So it's Clinton's job to do so, even if she has to break the rules to do it. Interjecting a derisive snort, shaking her head, or even simply saying "bullshit" (God, I wish SOMEONE would do that) would be a great and effective moment. I don't think that's Clinton's style, though.
It's not unlike when a lawyer says something he know the other side will object to, and then quickly says "withdrawn," but knows the jury has heard it anyway. Hillary MUST not rely on the superior logic and truth of her positions. Hasn't the campaign shown so far that logic and truth are ineffective anti-Trump weapons? What she has to do is yes, descend to his level. But he's much better at schoolyard brawling than she is.
So I expect Clinton to rationally, calmly point out her policy positions and the flaws in Trump's plans, and Trump to not answer a single question directly, lie unconvincingly, and evade any challenges while not saying a single thing of substance other than various insults of Hillary and immigrants, etc. And he will be proclaimed the winner of the debate.
Clinton needs to stop taking a knife to a gun fight
The stakes couldn't be higher for Clinton. It's a cruel twist of fate that the most qualified person to ever stand in a Presidential election finds herself running against a populist celebrity candidate. But that's where we are.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/opinions/clinton-needs-to-fight-trump-mcternan-opinion/
Quote: SteverinosI'm not at all surprised the race is tight. It was only a matter of time before the Republicans fell in line behind Trump. They put party before country for the entirety of Obama's presidency. To believe that they would put the country first now was laughable.
Yup
Ol Mitch McConnell
His job is to do what is best for the Country
Mitch could care less about the country
He famously said his job is to make sure Obama is a one term President
Pretty sad
No one knows who the Clinton campaign has got playing Trump in their mock debates during her prep. It's the question of the moment.
Last I heard, Trump doesn't want to do a full mock debate like candidates usually do in preparation. Roger Ailes may have convinced him otherwise by now though...
Quote: ams288Hillary is off the campaign trail today prepping for the debate.
No one knows who the Clinton campaign has got playing Trump in their mock debates during her prep. It's the question of the moment.
Last I heard, Trump doesn't want to do a full mock debate like candidates usually do in preparation. Roger Ailes may have convinced him otherwise by now though...
Well, when the proper strategy is probably "be yourself," he doesn't really need to prep for that. Anyway, if he tried to close the massive gap on policy and knowledge, he'd fail. I expect him to revert to the ignorant, obnoxious douchebaggery that worked so well for him in the primaries. And really, that's all he's got. He knows he'll get an utterly free pass on any shit he says, whereas if Hillary stutters or hiccups, the Dumbverse will immediately be flooded with claims that she's dying and shouldn't be elected.
I am not looking forward to this. I would rather watch rotten fruit being devoured by flies than see the Orange Orangutan open his stupid, evil mouth. But I'm sure millions of Trumpers will have orgasms.
Quote: boymimboSigh.... So here we are, what 7 weeks out from the election, and the polls have it at a virtual tie, and as a Canadian observing this thing, I have a difficult time explaining to my Canadian friends why Clinton isn't wiping up the floor over Trump.
With Clinton, you have a known person who is a typical politician who will cover-up half-truths and lies. Even the staunchiest Dems will admit that Clinton screwed up her E-mail server issue, which to me is a huge character issue and not a security issue. If Hillary gets elected, it's the same-old, same-old politics, with nothing significant getting done in Washington and 4 to 8 more years of frustration. People who are voting for Trump are effectively not voting for Hillary. And Hillary certainly didn't help things with her alienating comments a couple of weeks ago which was a death knell for Romney with the 47% comment that he made.
On the Trump side, here is a demagogue narcissist ass***e of a businessman who got a million buck starter fund and managed to use the laws to become very rich by not being liable for his business mistakes (Atlantic City). He's sexist. He's racist. He's stupid. He's endorsed by dictators. He won't release his tax returns because it would probably show a tax rate of something like 5% and no Charitable donations. There are plenty of present scandals to dodge him as well, like Trump University, paying legal fees out of his Foundation, and so on. Yet he was able to do an end-run around 16 other GOP candidates to win the nomination. Mexico will not pay for the wall, and he will not be able to reduce crime or get rid of the terrorists nor does he have any idea of how he is going to quell terrorism. His tax plan is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion dollars.
Yet his message, "make America Great again" is a winning marketing slogan, isn't it? In fact, it's huge. Because people feel like they don't have the opportunity their parents had and feel like their children are going to be worst off. There are smidgens of terrorist attacks (which pale in comparison to gun deaths and homegrown mass shootings). There is racial unrest. People are afraid. Americans love to be afraid and act on their fears. Somehow a portion of the population believes that Trump can somehow "make the nation better" but he really has no plans except make people afraid and get on Hillary for Email and Benghazi and her Foundation. Believe me.
No one who is voting for Trump cares about any of this. They are voting for Trump because they are not voting for Hillary. Any lie that he makes doesn't compare with bringing back in a Clinton. And that's why this thing is close. Fear, and voting against Hillary.
Excellent post. Particularly about fear. Though Trump didn't "become very rich." He was born that way. How much he built or didn't build upon that fortune is a matter of debate.
There's also a probable low turn out for Hillary, as many on that side will stay home or vote 3rd. I have a personal policy, which I'm told is very unreasonable. I won't vote for anybody who has deliberately starved 500,000 children to death, as I refuse to participate in such things. Anyway, the DNC rammed a deeply disliked candidate down the pipe and, surprise surprise, people don't want to vote for someone they deeply dislike.
I think a lot of Trump support is like Let's Make A Deal, except you're initial prize is the goat. That makes picking what's behind the door more enticing, even though on this version, what's behind the door might be someone who walks out and punches you in the nose.
Donald, however, has a problem with big business Reps and especially libertarians. He's opposite libertarians on damn near every issue. Big business Republicans have a candidate, in Hillary. This should help her pull it out.
Trump/Pence: 43.42%
Clinton/Kaine 45.75%
Johnson/Weld 8.07%
Stein/Baraka 2.76%
Electoral Votes:
Trump/Pence 266
Clinton/Kaine 272
Quote: beerseasonMy prediction model update:
Trump/Pence: 43.42%
Clinton/Kaine 45.75%
Johnson/Weld 8.07%
Stein/Baraka 2.76%
Electoral Votes:
Trump/Pence 266
Clinton/Kaine 272
Sorry if I missed this, but how are you doing this?
One of the most famous women in America, she almost lost to an elderly Jewish man that maybe 7% of the population knew of before the primary began. In spite of all the dirty tricks you waive off, and a tight alliance with the media and other elites and almost unlimited donations from Wall Street and big business in general, while Sanders had to raise his money from small donors.
I'm sure that, before the primaries began, someone would have given you 50-1 on Bernie doing so well.
Part of the reason for her atrocious primary result that is that people liked Bernie. Part of it is, people young enough to have gotten most political information/education on their own, are not falling for the usual tricks anymore. For example, they understand who funds and employs The Clintons, which is the sort of thing you won't see much on CNN. But a very big part, perhaps the biggest, is that people hate her.
What have they fed her to make her look
crazed, 8 Redbull's? If this doesn't make you
wince and want to hide, nothing will. At
least her eyes aren't shooting off in different
directions.
But putting it into perspective here, Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by, at best estimates, 150k votes. She won this primary by close to 4 million. That's an atrocious result?
Anyway, it proves anointed is not set in stone if you have someone strong enough. If you don't, it won't happen.
Quote: SteverinosI'm a huge Bernie fan. Always have been. And I actually thought he would do quite well because of his message. And he made her a better, stronger, more progressive candidate in the process. If you're a liberal progressive, that's a good thing.
But putting it into perspective here, Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by, at best estimates, 150k votes. She won this primary by close to 4 million. That's an atrocious result?
First off, he didn't make her a more progressive candidate. I've always thought this was kind of a silly, media driven narrative. Candidate a) changes into a new person because of a challenge from candidate b). She's accepted millions in bribes from Goldman Sachs. She'll do what they want, at your expense, just like she was going to before. She was a hawk before, she's a hawk now. She just altered her lies slightly in an effort to win an election.
The same would be true if they were saying a conservative candidate moved right or center because of who they ran against. I don't understand the mechanism that is supposed to be at work.
Yes, if a 50-1 dog (being conservative) hits, that is a bad result for the favorite.
If the New England Patriots played the USC Trojans and were 70 point favorites and won by 7, that would be an atrocious result.
If the US was invaded by Costa Rica and we won the war, but they annexed Florida that would be an atrocious result.
She is, objectively, one of the least popular nominees ever for a major party. And with good reason.
Funny you mentioned Obama. She was the anointed one last time and she lost to a black guy with a Muslim sounding name who was also much less known than her. Why? Partly because he is a great politician, but also because she is a terrible candidate.
Among young voters, who should be her bread and butter (except, they seek out info and don't watch CNN) her favorability was 31% in July. Hard to imagine it's increased since then.
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/194045/clinton-continuing-youth-problem.aspx
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
If it's fact, does that also make it a "media driven narrative"?
She's going to be like, "oh yeah, remember when Bernie almost beat me? I should do some of the stuff he wants, instead of the stuff I/my bosses want."
(I would kill for an img button on this forum.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q
Quote: gamerfreakHillary on Between Two Ferns, I wonder if trump will do one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q
After the liberal outrage from his Jimmy Fallon appearance, I don't see him being invited to do one.....
I, personally, didn't get the liberal outrage over the Jimmy Fallon appearance.
the video from yesterday, a speedball?
Imagine she's your wife. I can't do it, my
brain won't go there.
Perhaps instead you should imagine Trump is your wife:Quote: EvenBobC'mon, this is frightening. What is she on in
the video from yesterday, a speedball?
Imagine she's your wife. I can't do it, my
brain won't go there.
Quote: RigondeauxHave you watched the video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EyoKB3ZHSc
Just did. Are you going to base your vote on Hillary's looks?
I'd hope you vote on more pertinent issues. Like whether your candidate has stolen over $250,000 in charitable donations by re-routed it into his own for-profit businesses. That's exactly the kind of bold thinking we need in our next president. Honesty is overrated anyway, right?
But, Hillary had her own email server. I get it. I really do. /sarcasm
But if you're going off looks, Trump is orange, overweight, can't admit or accept he's bald, and has two ball sacks under his eyes because he stays up all night tweeting. Go for it.
Quote: SteverinosHillary got close to 4 million more votes than Bernie. I understand the leaks from the DNC emails show some staffers favored Hillary, but this claim that there was some concerted effort from the DNC to push Hillary to the win is just wrong. 4 million more votes. 4 million.
Uh, you do understand the concept that push by the party elite was a big reason she got so many more votes?
Bernie screwed up by not hammering her on her email crime. Biggest issue on either side and he threw it away.
LOL at the email "crime" (I find it funny that the same people calling for due process for police officers are the very same people calling Hillary guilty of a crime, just like I find it funny that the same people saying Colin Kapernick is degrading our country because of the national anthem protest are same people who are voting for a draft dodger who mocked John McCain) being the biggest issue on either side. Income inequality? Climate change? ISIS? Affordable college? Tax reform?
Cracks me up.
Hmm. Stealing money from charity. Violating fair housing laws. Breach of contract. Defrauding investors. Rape. Using a private email server. Yeah, I can see how the last one is the biggest issue on either side. Nice analysis.Quote: AZDuffmanUh, you do understand the concept that push by the party elite was a big reason she got so many more votes?
Bernie screwed up by not hammering her on her email crime. Biggest issue on either side and he threw it away.
Quote: ams288After the liberal outrage from his Jimmy Fallon appearance, I don't see him being invited to do one.....
I, personally, didn't get the liberal outrage over the Jimmy Fallon appearance.
Well, Fallon was AWFULLY chummy with Trump--to the point of reaching out and playfully mussing his hair. But Fallon is as entitled to do that as he would be to tongue-kiss Putin if he was a guest on Fallon's show. I think that many people view late night talk shows as being sorta kinda news, so that the hosts shouldn't show favoritism or skew the debate in favor of one candidate. But clearly, for whatever reason, Fallon thought that being palsy-palsy with The Donald would help his ratings, or something.
I don't see why anyone should be outraged, either. Though I'm imagining Fallon doing the same thing to Hillary, and her giving him a look that would melt lead.
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, you do understand the concept that push by the party elite was a big reason she got so many more votes?
Bernie screwed up by not hammering her on her email crime. Biggest issue on either side and he threw it away.
Wow, that's a real Duffmanism. The DNC has such power that it brainwashed FOUR MILLION PEOPLE into voting for Hillary instead of Bernie!!! Wowsa!
Obviously, Trump should just throw in the towel now, since the DNC will no doubt deploy its nationwide mind control ray network on Election Day.
And Duffy boy, Hillary committed no crime with her emails. The REPUBLICANS even admitted that, after a two-year witch hunt. Why are you incapable of doing so?
Quote: MathExtremistHmm. Stealing money from charity. Violating fair housing laws. Breach of contract. Defrauding investors. Rape. Using a private email server. Yeah, I can see how the last one is the biggest issue on either side. Nice analysis.
Well the Clinton Foundation is s fraud and Hillary did enable her husband's rape of women but the email server is much bigger fir the security breach alone.
The Clinton Foundation is a GREAT organization that has helped millions and saved lives. You're just flat out wrong.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell the Clinton Foundation is s fraud and Hillary did enable her husband's rape of women but the email server is much bigger fir the security breach alone.
I love desperate posts like this by righties.
Just throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks!
Quote: SteverinosThe Clinton foundation has received stellar grades from ALL charity watchdog organizations while 88% of their money goes out to the programs they help.
The Clinton Foundation is a GREAT organization that has helped millions and saved lives. You're just flat out wrong.
Being flat out wrong has never stopped Duffy before; why should it now? He's an extremist who staunchly opposes logic. He seems to think it a point of honor to stubbornly defend a ridiculous position (admitting he's wrong being out of the question).
But wait...EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!!! HILLARY SENT EMAILS!!!!! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!!! BURN HER ALIVE!!!!!!!!
Whew, sorry, I accidentally took a sip of Republican Kool-Aid.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikBeing flat out wrong has never stopped Duffy before; why should it now? He's an extremist who staunchly opposes logic. He seems to think it a point of honor to stubbornly defend a ridiculous position (admitting he's wrong being out of the question).
But wait...EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!!! HILLARY SENT EMAILS!!!!! NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!!! BURN HER ALIVE!!!!!!!!
Whew, sorry, I accidentally took a sip of Republican Kool-Aid.
She destroyed emails and sent them over an insecure server intentionally. It shows she does not have the judgment for the office of potus.
Quote: SteverinosThe Clinton foundation has received stellar grades from ALL charity watchdog organizations while 88% of their money goes out to the programs they help.
The Clinton Foundation is a GREAT organization that has helped millions and saved lives. You're just flat out wrong.
The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6% of it's total revenue in charitable contributions in 2014.
Article
Right there on page 1: Form 990
Total Revenue: $172,579,474 in contributions and grants.
Grants and SimilarAccounts Paid: $5,160,385
Quote: TankoThe Clinton Foundation spent less than 6% of it's total revenue in charitable contributions in 2014.
Article
Right there on page 1: Form 990
Total Revenue: $172,579,474 in contributions and grants.
Grants and SimilarAccounts Paid: $5,160,385
This is false and a debunked talking point. The Clinton foundation does their charity work IN HOUSE. what this means that instead of appropriating their money in the form of grants to other organizations that then do the work, the foundation employs its OWN people to do the work.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
It truly is amazing how severely misinformed people are and don't know it.
Again, the Clinton foundation has received stellar grades from all charity watchdog organizations. You really think they'd get an A if they only spent 6% on actual charity? Geez. Get real.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Quote: TankoThe Clinton Foundation spent less than 6% of it's total revenue in charitable contributions in 2014.
Article
Right there on page 1: Form 990
Total Revenue: $172,579,474 in contributions and grants.
Grants and SimilarAccounts Paid: $5,160,385
That is what they gave in grants, not what they spent on charitable works.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
I guess the DNC and HRC are really pretty good at securing stuff. It's things like this that has Bernie fans up in arms. Although the Bernie campaign wasn't innocent.
I honestly don't get the Clinton campaign. They are the slowest to react campaign I've ever seen. Just until recently, last week or so iirc, they are getting Sanders, Warren, Michelle out to stump for HRC to get the younger vote? Did they not realize that when Hillary all but won this wouldn't be a problem? Did it only take a nosedive in the polls for them to react? This is in my opinion is a reactive campaign not a proactive. And it cost her in 2008. Will it this time? I don't know.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/22/12893444/clinton-foundation-effectiveness
Quote: SteverinosQuote: TankoThe Clinton Foundation spent less than 6% of it's total revenue in charitable contributions in 2014.
Article
Right there on page 1: Form 990
Total Revenue: $172,579,474 in contributions and grants.
Grants and SimilarAccounts Paid: $5,160,385
This is false and a debunked talking point. The Clinton foundation does their charity work IN HOUSE. what this means that instead of appropriating their money in the form of grants to other organizations that then do the work, the foundation employs its OWN people to do the work.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
It truly is amazing how severely misinformed people are and don't know it.
Again, the Clinton foundation has received stellar grades from all charity watchdog organizations. You really think they'd get an A if they only spent 6% on actual charity? Geez. Get real.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Not to come off attacking this because it is a valid point, I like to play devils advocate and I don't know the answer. But what tangible results has it produced with so called in house staff?
Quote: beerseason
Not to come off attacking this because it is a valid point, I like to play devils advocate and I don't know the answer. But what tangible results has it produced with so called in house staff?
Do the most cursory research and you'll find quite a bit of data on that.
EDIT: Check the link on ME's recent post.
Quote: MathExtremistBottom line, the Clinton Foundation spent its funds to save millions of lives. The Trump Foundation spent it's funds on an autographed Tim Tebow helmet and settling Trump's corporate lawsuits. The Trump smear campaign against the Clinton Foundation is just another ruse to deflect criticism from Trump's own felony tax evasion. And that's what it is when you use a quarter-million dollars in charitable donations to cover corporate expenses.
Hey, you're being unfair to the OO. That $20,000 life-size portrait of Trump, now hanging on the wall at one of his resorts, was a worthy use of the Trump Foundation's money.
There's a term for the crime of using charitable organization funds to pay personal expenses; I don't remember what it is. But it's sure as hell a felony.
I think it's a few different felonies. SCOTUS allows a fraud action under state law:Quote: JoeshlabotnikHey, you're being unfair to the OO. That $20,000 life-size portrait of Trump, now hanging on the wall at one of his resorts, was a worthy use of the Trump Foundation's money.
There's a term for the crime of using charitable organization funds to pay personal expenses; I don't remember what it is. But it's sure as hell a felony.
from http://www.naag.org/publications/naagazette/volume_2_number_1/enforcement_of_charitable_organizations.phpQuote:However, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the First Amendment cannot be used as a shield against prosecution for fraud. In Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., the Court held that “consistent with our precedent and the First Amendment, States may maintain fraud actions when fundraisers make false or misleading statements designed to deceive donors about how their donations will be used.”
And it's also probably federal tax fraud and maybe even conspiracy to commit tax fraud if the donations came from others who knew what the funds would be used for. It might also violate AML regulations, which would be ironic for a casino operator. Run the money through the charity first, clean it up, use it for whatever you want because it's a fake charity anyway. But I can't imagine how anyone would be dumb enough to embezzle a quarter million in charity funds and think they won't get caught. Especially if they're, uh, running for president...
I will not be surprised if the DoJ announces an investigation into this maelstrom in the next three weeks.
Quote: SteverinosThis is false and a debunked talking point. The Clinton foundation does their charity work IN HOUSE. what this means that instead of appropriating their money in the form of grants to other organizations that then do the work, the foundation employs its OWN people to do the work.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
It truly is amazing how severely misinformed people are and don't know it.
Again, the Clinton foundation has received stellar grades from all charity watchdog organizations. You really think they'd get an A if they only spent 6% on actual charity? Geez. Get real.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Despite what those articles say, and what the Foundation claims, none of this is supported by their Form 990.
Part 9 on page 10 shows the itemized list of expenses for 2014.
Total expenses for 2014 were $91 million.
Only $5,100,000 was spent on Grants. This is an itemized list. Nothing else listed for any other charitable expenses, in house or otherwise.
They ended the year with $75,000,000 more in total fund assets than the previous year.
Charity Watch claims 88% of the Foundation's revenue goes to initiatives with the remaining 12% to overhead. If they actually were spending 88% of their revenues on charitable work, then how did they manage to increase their net assets (page 1) by $75 million on total revenues of $177 million?
As for 'stellar grades' from watchdog organizations, the article you provided shows Charity Navigator no longer rates The Clinton Foundation, because 'their business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology'.
I'm no longer buying that he isn't doing mock debates to prepare. Too many Trump people are saying that in the media. They want people to think he is unprepared, and then when he is, he will look good.
I can guarantee that on Monday night, no matter how good or bad Trump does, Trump apologists like EvenBob will declare "Trump just won the election" and "he looked so Presidential." You can bet on it.
Quote: ams288Seems like the Trump campaign is trying really, really hard to lower expectations for the debate.
I'm no longer buying that he isn't doing mock debates to prepare. Too many Trump people are saying that in the media. They want people to think he is unprepared, and then when he is, he will look good.
I can guarantee that on Monday night, no matter how good or bad Trump does, Trump apologists like EvenBob will declare "Trump just won the election" and "he looked so Presidential." You can bet on it.
You can also bet on something relatively trivial to wind up being the major focus of the debate. These debates are supposed to be our opportunity to find out how the candidates stand on major issues, their policy proposals, their plans for the future, etc. The sad fact is that the public doesn't really care about all that--otherwise, they would have rejected Trump long, long ago.
Given that the only thing that 99% of people care about is how changes in government will affect ME ME ME ME ME, you would still think that they would pay attention to those issues broached by the candidates that will affect their rice bowls. But these debates are performances--battles of charisma and showmanship. If Trump does his petulant fourth-grader shtick (and why wouldn't he), that will completely overwhelm whatever Clinton says. "We'll bomb the hell out of ISIS" "Trumps" "I intend to work for free college tuition for all." Why? Because the former statement is more simplistic and conveys macho power and bluster. It's what the public wants to see and hear, not messy ol' concepts that they have to THINK about.
So yes, Clinton will stomp Trump through the floor, Trump will be declared the winner of the debate, and Trump's poll numbers will go up for his performance in "standing up to that liberal bitch." There are certain things about the American political process that you can count on.
Suggested tactic for Hillary: gasp, stumble, and faint, right there at the podium--and wait for Trump to point a finger at her as she's slumped on the floor and burst out laughing. No, what am I saying. That wouldn't hurt him a bit.
Quote: TankoDespite what those articles say, and what the Foundation claims, none of this is supported by their Form 990.
Part 9 on page 10 shows the itemized list of expenses for 2014.
Total expenses for 2014 were $91 million.
Only $5,100,000 was spent on Grants. This is an itemized list. Nothing else listed for any other charitable expenses, in house or otherwise.
They ended the year with $75,000,000 more in total fund assets than the previous year.
Charity Watch claims 88% of the Foundation's revenue goes to initiatives with the remaining 12% to overhead. If they actually were spending 88% of their revenues on charitable work, then how did they manage to increase their net assets (page 1) by $75 million on total revenues of $177 million?
As for 'stellar grades' from watchdog organizations, the article you provided shows Charity Navigator no longer rates The Clinton Foundation, because 'their business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology'.
I'm done trying to explain it to people that don't want to listen and have their minds made up, even though they are dead wrong. I linked a couple articles that explain it to you, and you still don't believe the truth. They don't appropriate their funds via grants. They employ people that do the charity work. Carry on.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-charity-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks-2016-9
Okay, NOW I'm done. Maybe...
Quote: SteverinosQuote: TankoDespite what those articles say, and what the Foundation claims, none of this is supported by their Form 990.
Part 9 on page 10 shows the itemized list of expenses for 2014.
Total expenses for 2014 were $91 million.
Only $5,100,000 was spent on Grants. This is an itemized list. Nothing else listed for any other charitable expenses, in house or otherwise.
They ended the year with $75,000,000 more in total fund assets than the previous year.
Charity Watch claims 88% of the Foundation's revenue goes to initiatives with the remaining 12% to overhead. If they actually were spending 88% of their revenues on charitable work, then how did they manage to increase their net assets (page 1) by $75 million on total revenues of $177 million?
As for 'stellar grades' from watchdog organizations, the article you provided shows Charity Navigator no longer rates The Clinton Foundation, because 'their business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology'.
I'm done trying to explain it to people that don't want to listen and have their minds made up, even though they are dead wrong. I linked a couple articles that explain it to you, and you still don't believe the truth. They don't appropriate their funds via grants. They employ people that do the charity work. Carry on.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-charity-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks-2016-9
Their hatred for the Clintons runs too deep and they will look at only perspectives that confirm their bias. It would be a colossal waste of time to convince them otherwise, but it is still a good "civic duty" to point out their $%%$%! ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/23/trump-is-headed-for-a-win-says-professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-outcomes-correctly/
