In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

[leftwinger]

Except for the "Canada" branch where 78% spent "administrative".

Its a notorious slush fund. Take a look at form 990. Second big charity item seems to be Clinton library. That don't feed no AfriCan.......we gone.

 

[AntonToo]

Isn't it past your bedtime?

I thrive on personal concern for me from random num nuts on the internetz.

Thank you.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending. You've tried to break it down into "Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

You really expect anything better from your opposition?

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

Damn, now I have to jump in again.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending.

It is a charity worth defending. Its track record speaks for itself.

"Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

The clinton foundation is nonprofit and charity watch is independent, and its not the only one watching the clinton foundation. There's a reason Bush praised clinton for his foundations work, along with Obama and others. What "abuses of power?"

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty,

It's not faulty, considering you provide nothing to the contrary. Are you stupid?

as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Good for you. Then you should know that the Clinton Foundation has helped millions, tens of millions, and the majority of donations go straight into helping people in regards to education, getting medicine..

David thinks the United Way is a quality charity too.....

 

[AntonToo]

Oh I'm sorry, is that a dick in your mouth?

No it's just you, having weird fantasies and telling us about them.

 

[Alexandra]

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

Alexandra is it? it's nice that you dis charity work and all but you are a tiny little itsy bitsy spec of dust compared to work that gets done by the Clinton Foundation and your baseless shitting on them is not because you are somehow an expert on making a difference in the world, but because you are a two bit partisan hack.

And now I know to dismiss you completely.

Unless, of course, you can tell me exactly what my experience in charitable work is, what "partisanship" it is you think I have (which means you'd better know what my positions on all the issues are), etc. Of course, this might be a challenge for you, especially since you have to introduce your post by making sure what my name is.

I used to say to people that it must be nice to put people you've never met into tidy little boxes as soon as you speak to them, just on the basis of what their opinion is on one thing or another, but I've since changed my mind. It must be hell. You just don't you're in it.

 

[francoHFW]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

I needed a good laugh before bed. Thanks bud!

That's your way of saying you have no argument, especially when you realize the clinton foundation has helped hundreds of millions of people.

10% to actual charity. I don't need an argument. It does seem you need some perspective tho

No, 10% for expenses, the rest spent helping people, dupe.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

I needed a good laugh before bed. Thanks bud!

That's your way of saying you have no argument, especially when you realize the clinton foundation has helped hundreds of millions of people.

10% to actual charity. I don't need an argument. It does seem you need some perspective tho

No, 10% for expenses, the rest spent helping people, dupe.

Public crap

 

[AntonToo]

And now I know to dismiss you completely.

Unless, of course, you can tell me exactly what my experience in charitable work is, what "partisanship" it is you think I have (which means you'd better know what my positions on all the issues are), etc. Of course, this might be a challenge for you, especially since you have to introduce your post by making sure what my name is.

I used to say to people that it must be nice to put people you've never met into tidy little boxes as soon as you speak to them, just on the basis of what their opinion is on one thing or another, but I've since changed my mind. It must be hell. You just don't you're in it.

I don't need to tell anything about you that you didn't already prove.

You can't address a single ******* thing that was explained to you about Clinton Foundation's model and how it relates to their fund allocation.

Take your stories about how you are a this grand philanthropist and shove them up your ass, they are just your stories and no one gives a shit.

 

[Alexandra]

And now I know to dismiss you completely.

Unless, of course, you can tell me exactly what my experience in charitable work is, what "partisanship" it is you think I have (which means you'd better know what my positions on all the issues are), etc. Of course, this might be a challenge for you, especially since you have to introduce your post by making sure what my name is.

I used to say to people that it must be nice to put people you've never met into tidy little boxes as soon as you speak to them, just on the basis of what their opinion is on one thing or another, but I've since changed my mind. It must be hell. You just don't you're in it.

I don't need to tell anything about you that you didn't already prove.

You can't address a single ******* thing that was explained to you about Clinton Foundation's model and how it relates to their fund allocation.

Take your stories about how you are a this grand philanthropist and shove them up your ass, they are just your stories and no one gives a shit.

**snicker**

 

[Alexandra]

If you come into this with an open mind, you might stop spreading nonsense about the clinton foundation
In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Business and organizations love to rub shoulders with iconic American leaders — though the money Clinton has earned is probably a fraction of what President George H.W. Bush made by signing up with The Carlyle Group, an international conglomerate that made most of its initial money from U.S. defense contracts and from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia.

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE IGNORE:

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Over 10 years, CGI meetings have resulted in more than 3,100 commitments to action, deploying more than $100 billion which has been used to improve the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries around the world.

And about those "bribes" or whatever you want to call them:

One claim is that to help a major donor to the foundation, Hillary as secretary of state, changed her position and supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was ratified in 2011.

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

In the case of Colombia, it had made tremendous strides in improving its human rights situation during the period Hillary Clinton changed her position. And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

OPEN MIND???
Do you know where you are?

I have an open mind.

To comprehensive facts.

 

[Flopper]

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending. You've tried to break it down into "Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

You really expect anything better from your opposition?

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

Damn, now I have to jump in again.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending.

It is a charity worth defending. Its track record speaks for itself.

"Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

The clinton foundation is nonprofit and charity watch is independent, and its not the only one watching the clinton foundation. There's a reason Bush praised clinton for his foundations work, along with Obama and others. What "abuses of power?"

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty,

It's not faulty, considering you provide nothing to the contrary. Are you stupid?

as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Good for you. Then you should know that the Clinton Foundation has helped millions, tens of millions, and the majority of donations go straight into helping people in regards to education, getting medicine..

CharityWatch REPORT
Issued April 2016

• Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Fou...
• Ratings & Metrics
• Governance & Transparency
• Analysts' Notes
• Salaries
• Donor Alerts & Articles / Media

Contact & General Information
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.clintonfoundation.org
Tax Status: 501(c)3
Other Names
Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Health Access Initiative
William J. Clinton Foundation
Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.
RATING: A

Is this rating different than what you expected based on what the charity reports about itself or what other raters report about this charity? Read about what makesCharityWatch's independent ratingsdifferent from other sources of information.


Stated Mission
Works to improve global health & wellness, increase opportunity for women & girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity & growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.


Fiscal Year Ended 12/31/14
Program Percentage : 88 %

Program %Overhead %12%88%
Task Fundraising & Overhead %
Program % 88
Overhead % 12

Calculated Total Expenses (rounded) : $242,000,000

A charity's Program % is the percentage of its cash budget it spends on Programs relative to Overhead (Fundraising and Management & General Expenses)

Cost to Raise $100 : $ 2

$98
Task Amount it cost to raise $100
Cost to raise $100 $2
$98 $98

Calculated Total Contributions (rounded) : $325,000,000

Cost to Raise $100 signifies how many dollars a charity spends on Fundraising to raise each $100 of Contributions.


Government Funding
CharityWatch calculates the percentage of a charity's cash revenue received from government sources for informational purposes for those donors who would like to factor a charity's range of government funding into their giving decisions. Donors should keep in mind that funding from the government does not automatically signal that a charity is well-governed and/or more efficient than other charities.
For the reporting year rated by CharityWatch, this charity received cash grants/contributions from government sources within a range of:

0% to 24%

Financial Documents
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation's rating is based onCharityWatch's in-depth analysis of the following documents for the fiscal year represented:

Entity Document Type Tax Id #
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation Audited Consolidated Financial Statements Multiple
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation IRS Form 990 31-1580204
Clinton Health Access Initiative IRS Form 990 27-1414646
Clinton Health Access Initiative & Subsidiaries Audited Consolidated Financial Statements 27-1414646

See the CRITERIA to learn why CharityWatch analyzes multiple documents before computing a charity's rating.

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

 

[Alexandra]

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending. You've tried to break it down into "Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

You really expect anything better from your opposition?

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Umph off.

Damn, now I have to jump in again.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending.

It is a charity worth defending. Its track record speaks for itself.

"Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

The clinton foundation is nonprofit and charity watch is independent, and its not the only one watching the clinton foundation. There's a reason Bush praised clinton for his foundations work, along with Obama and others. What "abuses of power?"

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty,

It's not faulty, considering you provide nothing to the contrary. Are you stupid?

as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and give every penny (non-religious, so you understand), I'm more than familiar with the differences involved.

Good for you. Then you should know that the Clinton Foundation has helped millions, tens of millions, and the majority of donations go straight into helping people in regards to education, getting medicine..

CharityWatch REPORT
Issued April 2016

• Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Fou...
• Ratings & Metrics
• Governance & Transparency
• Analysts' Notes
• Salaries
• Donor Alerts & Articles / Media

Contact & General Information
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.clintonfoundation.org
Tax Status: 501(c)3
Other Names
Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Health Access Initiative
William J. Clinton Foundation
Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.
RATING: A

Is this rating different than what you expected based on what the charity reports about itself or what other raters report about this charity? Read about what makesCharityWatch's independent ratingsdifferent from other sources of information.


Stated Mission
Works to improve global health & wellness, increase opportunity for women & girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity & growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.


Fiscal Year Ended 12/31/14
Program Percentage : 88 %

Program %Overhead %12%88%
Task Fundraising & Overhead %
Program % 88
Overhead % 12

Calculated Total Expenses (rounded) : $242,000,000

A charity's Program % is the percentage of its cash budget it spends on Programs relative to Overhead (Fundraising and Management & General Expenses)

Cost to Raise $100 : $ 2

$98
Task Amount it cost to raise $100
Cost to raise $100 $2
$98 $98

Calculated Total Contributions (rounded) : $325,000,000

Cost to Raise $100 signifies how many dollars a charity spends on Fundraising to raise each $100 of Contributions.


Government Funding
CharityWatch calculates the percentage of a charity's cash revenue received from government sources for informational purposes for those donors who would like to factor a charity's range of government funding into their giving decisions. Donors should keep in mind that funding from the government does not automatically signal that a charity is well-governed and/or more efficient than other charities.
For the reporting year rated by CharityWatch, this charity received cash grants/contributions from government sources within a range of:

0% to 24%

Financial Documents
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation's rating is based onCharityWatch's in-depth analysis of the following documents for the fiscal year represented:

Entity Document Type Tax Id #
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation Audited Consolidated Financial Statements Multiple
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation IRS Form 990 31-1580204
Clinton Health Access Initiative IRS Form 990 27-1414646
Clinton Health Access Initiative & Subsidiaries Audited Consolidated Financial Statements 27-1414646

See the CRITERIA to learn why CharityWatch analyzes multiple documents before computing a charity's rating.

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

DUDE!!! Did you not follow the earlier link to the Seattle TImes report on CharityWatch? It's not as if it's a partisan paper...

This is NOT comprehensive. Not in the slightest. It only looks that way - the accounting is slim, and that's putting it charitably, and what few numbers are provided by the foundation here can be so easily manipulated in the accounting. If you give credence to this report as an example of fiscal worthiness (as a charity), you need to beef up your skepticism. Big time.

The kindest thing I can say about those in this thread defending the Clinton Foundation, based on such easily skewed, obscurantist information, is that they're being very, very....

charitable...

in a dopey kind of way.

 

[AntonToo]

I have an open mind.

To comprehensive facts.

Stop kidding yourself, what you got is a comprehensive bias and politicking. Facts don't interest you in the slightest.

 

[Alexandra]

It can't be under a microscope, because they (Clinton Foundation) haven't provided it.

Yes they have. They HAVE to provide it. Are you suffering from CDS? Unfortunately the only cure is to register as a democrat..

Oh, yes. By all means, the only solution is to register with a party and enslave yourself to parroting whatever the line-of-the-moment is, just to get a lil' more power.

Humbug. (I'd use stronger words, but I'm trying to be polite). Independent is the only way to go.

Think for yourself.

We're done here. You've gone completely off track.

The only track here is a defense of the Clinton Foundation as a charity organization worth defending. You've tried to break it down into "Well, gee, according to this or that group which judges these things according to a few basic numbers provided by the foundation itself (without any detailed accounting) it's all peachy keen, and I don't have a damn thing to say about all the plainly horrid abuses of power except 'neener-neener.'

You really expect anything better from your opposition?

I've at least taken the trouble to show you why your information is faulty, and as someone who has done a lot of genuine charitable work and knows what it takes to earn, scrape and
Good for you. Then you should know that the Clinton Foundation has helped millions, tens of millions, and the majority of donations go straight into helping people in regards to education, getting medicine..

I have an open mind.

To comprehensive facts.

Stop kidding yourself, what you got is a comprehensive bias and politicking. Facts don't interest you in the slightest.

And I've said what to convince you of this?

 

[AntonToo]

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

 

[Alexandra]

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Oh, looky, looky! A link to one of your posts, not a refutation of anything I've said...

Well, that should convince the local numb-skulls.

Got anything for the smart people?

 

[David_42]

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Oh, looky, looky! A link to one of your posts, not a refutation of anything I've said...

Well, that should convince the local numb-skulls.

Got anything for the smart people?

You haven't said anything of substance. There's nothing to refute.

 

[AntonToo]

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Oh, looky, looky! A link to one of your posts, not a refutation of anything I've said...

Well, that should convince the local numb-skulls.

Got anything for the smart people?

Dumbass it's a post you can't find in yourself to sanely, rationally respond to. It is exactly what convinces me that your mind is anything but open, anything but smart.

P.S. your constant self-flattery is quite pathetic.

 

[Alexandra]

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Oh, looky, looky! A link to one of your posts, not a refutation of anything I've said...

Well, that should convince the local numb-skulls.

Got anything for the smart people?

You haven't said anything of substance. There's nothing to refute.

And I've said what to convince you of this?

ummm your ranty-fluffy non-response to substance?

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

Oh, looky, looky! A link to one of your posts, not a refutation of anything I've said...

Well, that should convince the local numb-skulls.

Got anything for the smart people?

You haven't said anything of substance. There's nothing to refute.

Oh, but I have provided substance, snookums. What you're supposed to be proving, however (and, given your limited faculties, I understand why you might have lost track) is that my opinion on this matter is driven purely by a "comprehensive bias and politicking."

Well...?

 

[Alexandra]

Dumbass it's a post you can't find in yourself to sanely, rationally respond to. It is exactly what convinces me that your mind is anything but open, anything but smart.

P.S. self-flattery is pathetic.

Speak for yourself. *bats eyelashes*