Washington Post: Hillary Rapidly Losing Support From Dems/Independents.

[PaintMyHouse]

If the Dems could produce a credible alternative she'd be complete toast. Most people are sticking with her because they've got no one else.

There is no one else, not of her stature.

She has the same stature as Al Capone.

No my little infant, she does not. That is only true in your stupid child of a mind.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

More fall out from the latest round of polling data. Per the Washington Post....Hillary has awful support numbers among Independents who generally decide elections.

Per the Washington Post:

"Clinton has lost support among independents. In March, 45 percent had a favorable view and 44 percent had an unfavorable view, for a net approval rating of +1 point. That has now fallen to -14 points (37 percent-51 percent)."


And her support from Democrats:


"Even more striking is that Clinton has lost support among Democrats. In March, her net favorability rating was +59 points (78 percent-19 percent). It is now +50 percent (72 percent-22 percent)."


The writer....(it being the Washington Post) tries to spin the numbers, but even he acknowledges things are bad for the Hildabeast. Sad.


Hillary Clinton s poll numbers are falling. Among Democrats. - The Washington Post

B-but, I thought she was the heir apparent?

She is...

 

[LoneLaugher]

Which GOP hopeful polls highest among independents and what is the number?

 

[hipeter924]

and children

Why do Dems hate Children?

Tone-deaf Clinton campaign throws kids off playground New York Post

"According to the park’s website, a specially planned event for tots called Imagination Playground — which features unique blue building blocks — has been canceled to accommodate the Democratic front-runner for president."

I thought Clinton would have had enough sense to visit the tots, aren't politicians meant to kiss babies for PR?

 

[The Rabbi]

Which GOP hopeful polls highest among independents and what is the number?

Largely irrelevant at this point since none have the same name recognition as Hillary. Jeb would come close.

 

[bendog]

If the Dems could produce a credible alternative she'd be complete toast. Most people are sticking with her because they've got no one else.

There is no one else, not of her stature.

The Foundation continuing with biz as usual was a colossal clusterfck of hubris. What's a concern is that no one in her campaign seems able to get that across to her, and possibly even worse is Slick appears equally tone deaf. Anyone remotely bipartisan and who has followed what foundations are and do, realizes there's nothing really more sinister about the Clinton's foundation than ... for example BOA foundation or Heritage .... But still it is at best unseemly to have a candidate or spouse sucking up to dubious individuals for donations. And, it's just unnecessary. Take 8 years off from fundraising for fcks sake, Bill. The money's there, and just have the trustees use the damn interest.

 

[WelfareQueen]

If the Dems could produce a credible alternative she'd be complete toast. Most people are sticking with her because they've got no one else.

There is no one else, not of her stature.

The Foundation continuing with biz as usual was a colossal clusterfck of hubris. What's a concern is that no one in her campaign seems able to get that across to her, and possibly even worse is Slick appears equally tone deaf. Anyone remotely bipartisan and who has followed what foundations are and do, realizes there's nothing really more sinister about the Clinton's foundation than ... for example BOA foundation or Heritage .... But still it is at best unseemly to have a candidate or spouse sucking up to dubious individuals for donations. And, it's just unnecessary. Take 8 years off from fundraising for fcks sake, Bill. The money's there, and just have the trustees use the damn interest.

You are a very reasonable person and I happen to think you are absolutely correct....with one exception.

The Clinton are using their foundation for three reasons in rank order.


1. It is their personal piggy-bank. Period. Reports from reputable media outlets such as the NYT say that the Clinton Foundation is keeping anywhere from 93% to 87% of all money raised. That is staggering. Both Bill and Hillary have "expensed" tens of millions of dollars to the Foundation and paid themselves directly.

2. They use their Foundation to trade influence and favors. I do not think any reasonable person call argue otherwise.

3. They do donate between 7%-13% of the Foundation proceeds to charity. At least a small fraction of the money goes to actually help people. But it is far too little.

 

[bendog]

If the Dems could produce a credible alternative she'd be complete toast. Most people are sticking with her because they've got no one else.

There is no one else, not of her stature.

The Foundation continuing with biz as usual was a colossal clusterfck of hubris. What's a concern is that no one in her campaign seems able to get that across to her, and possibly even worse is Slick appears equally tone deaf. Anyone remotely bipartisan and who has followed what foundations are and do, realizes there's nothing really more sinister about the Clinton's foundation than ... for example BOA foundation or Heritage .... But still it is at best unseemly to have a candidate or spouse sucking up to dubious individuals for donations. And, it's just unnecessary. Take 8 years off from fundraising for fcks sake, Bill. The money's there, and just have the trustees use the damn interest.

You are a very reasonable person and I happen to think you are absolutely correct....with one exception.

The Clinton are using their foundation for three reasons in rank order.


1. It is their personal piggy-bank. Period. Reports from reputable media outlets such as the NYT say that the Clinton Foundation is keeping anywhere from 93% to 87% of all money raised. That is staggering. Both Bill and Hillary have "expensed" tens of millions of dollars to the Foundation and paid themselves directly.

2. They use their Foundation to trade influence and favors. I do not think any reasonable person call argue otherwise.

3. They do donate between 7%-13% of the Foundation proceeds to charity. At least a small fraction of the money goes to actually help people. But it is far too little.

Well, here's randomly pulled Private Foundation annual report. They hae 540 million in assets, granted out 70 million, which is about 13%, and their annual income on investments from donations and interest was 130 million. So, I don't think your concern about how much the Clinton's Foundations are giving is warranted at all. It's a bs story that you, and others, have fallen for.

https://www.gcfdn.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/GCF_AR_2013.pdf

Greater Cincinnati Foundation Annual Report - The Greater Cincinnati Foundation

The whole idea behind a foundation is for it to be forever. It grows, to have more money, to give for whatever purpose it's set up for.

STILL, it's just not proper for a candidate or spouse to give the appearance of EVEN MAYBE selling access for donations. And, like I said, it's just improper. Slick and Chelsea should let the directors of the Foundations run them, so long as Hill is a candidate. No one else has EVER done this. It's just hubris, and that should give anyone pause about getting on the Hillary bus.

 

[WelfareQueen]

If the Dems could produce a credible alternative she'd be complete toast. Most people are sticking with her because they've got no one else.

There is no one else, not of her stature.

The Foundation continuing with biz as usual was a colossal clusterfck of hubris. What's a concern is that no one in her campaign seems able to get that across to her, and possibly even worse is Slick appears equally tone deaf. Anyone remotely bipartisan and who has followed what foundations are and do, realizes there's nothing really more sinister about the Clinton's foundation than ... for example BOA foundation or Heritage .... But still it is at best unseemly to have a candidate or spouse sucking up to dubious individuals for donations. And, it's just unnecessary. Take 8 years off from fundraising for fcks sake, Bill. The money's there, and just have the trustees use the damn interest.

You are a very reasonable person and I happen to think you are absolutely correct....with one exception.

The Clinton are using their foundation for three reasons in rank order.


1. It is their personal piggy-bank. Period. Reports from reputable media outlets such as the NYT say that the Clinton Foundation is keeping anywhere from 93% to 87% of all money raised. That is staggering. Both Bill and Hillary have "expensed" tens of millions of dollars to the Foundation and paid themselves directly.

2. They use their Foundation to trade influence and favors. I do not think any reasonable person call argue otherwise.

3. They do donate between 7%-13% of the Foundation proceeds to charity. At least a small fraction of the money goes to actually help people. But it is far too little.

Well, here's randomly pulled Private Foundation annual report. They hae 540 million in assets, granted out 70 million, which is about 13%, and their annual income on investments from donations and interest was 130 million. So, I don't think your concern about how much the Clinton's Foundations are giving is warranted at all. It's a bs story that you, and others, have fallen for.

https://www.gcfdn.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/GCF_AR_2013.pdf

Greater Cincinnati Foundation Annual Report - The Greater Cincinnati Foundation

The whole idea behind a foundation is for it to be forever. It grows, to have more money, to give for whatever purpose it's set up for.

STILL, it's just not proper for a candidate or spouse to give the appearance of EVEN MAYBE selling access for donations. And, like I said, it's just improper. Slick and Chelsea should let the directors of the Foundations run them, so long as Hill is a candidate. No one else has EVER done this. It's just hubris, and that should give anyone pause about getting on the Hillary bus.

So I said per media sources the Clinton's have donated between 7%-13% of the monies raised by their Foundation to charity.

Your source says 13% which is exactly what I stated. So where is the b.s.?

Plus, I noted you completely avoided my point about the tens of millions of dollars Bill and Hillary have taken out of their Foundation as personal income.

 

[bendog]

My post merely noted that the Cinny Foundation paid out about what the Clinton Foundation paid out.

I don't see a link as to what the Clintons got out of the Foundations. But, I don't really see that as relevant, because the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation all employee descendants of the donors. And, so will the Gates Foundation.

Are Bill and Chelsea paid anything .... even for travel and other expenses. Probably, but it should be irrelevant because that's how foundations work. And,

Overall, the foundation spends about 89 percent of its money on its charitable mission, according to the independent American Institute of Philanthropy. Based on that analysis, the watchdog group gave the foundation a rating of A for 2013, on a scale that goes to A-plus. Charity Navigator, the other leading group that rates charities, recently put the foundation on a “watch list” because of the negative press that has surrounded it. (That group has not issued a rating for the Clinton Foundation, saying the foundation’s structure is too complex to grade.)

The inside story of how the Clintons built a 2 billion global empire - The Washington Post

But, again, I think you're falling for partisan claptrap. The gop has effectively used Slick's palling up to various folks to get money. He's not necessarily doing anything wrong, or illegal. Mitt didn't cheat on his taxes, but left an impression that he though he really should pay less a % than guys like us pay. The Clintons are going that same direction.

For the real problem of the Foundations

The Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton FoundationCapital Research Center

 

[The Rabbi]

My post merely noted that the Cinny Foundation paid out about what the Clinton Foundation paid out.

I don't see a link as to what the Clintons got out of the Foundations. But, I don't really see that as relevant, because the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation all employee descendants of the donors. And, so will the Gates Foundation.

Are Bill and Chelsea paid anything .... even for travel and other expenses. Probably, but it should be irrelevant because that's how foundations work. And,

Overall, the foundation spends about 89 percent of its money on its charitable mission, according to the independent American Institute of Philanthropy. Based on that analysis, the watchdog group gave the foundation a rating of A for 2013, on a scale that goes to A-plus. Charity Navigator, the other leading group that rates charities, recently put the foundation on a “watch list” because of the negative press that has surrounded it. (That group has not issued a rating for the Clinton Foundation, saying the foundation’s structure is too complex to grade.)

The inside story of how the Clintons built a 2 billion global empire - The Washington Post

But, again, I think you're falling for partisan claptrap. The gop has effectively used Slick's palling up to various folks to get money. He's not necessarily doing anything wrong, or illegal. Mitt didn't cheat on his taxes, but left an impression that he though he really should pay less a % than guys like us pay. The Clintons are going that same direction.

For the real problem of the Foundations

The Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton FoundationCapital Research Center

You dont get it. The Clinton Foundation is merely a vehicle to funnel tax free money to the Clinton's, picking up the tabs for their homes, transportation etc while sprinkling a tiny bit of money on charity. No, the Ford Foundation never worked that way.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

More fall out from the latest round of polling data. Per the Washington Post....Hillary has awful support numbers among Independents who generally decide elections.

Per the Washington Post:

"Clinton has lost support among independents. In March, 45 percent had a favorable view and 44 percent had an unfavorable view, for a net approval rating of +1 point. That has now fallen to -14 points (37 percent-51 percent)."


And her support from Democrats:


"Even more striking is that Clinton has lost support among Democrats. In March, her net favorability rating was +59 points (78 percent-19 percent). It is now +50 percent (72 percent-22 percent)."


The writer....(it being the Washington Post) tries to spin the numbers, but even he acknowledges things are bad for the Hildabeast. Sad.


Hillary Clinton s poll numbers are falling. Among Democrats. - The Washington Post

i just hope that in every purple state, independants represent about 55/60% of voters. and hopefully no purple state has more than 30% registered rats.

 

[HR Pufnstuf]

Mine is a legitimate question: Doesn't this nation deserve a leader that will build a consensus, reach across the aisle and end the partisan gridlock that festers in Washington? Truly Hillary, at this point, has not demonstrated the leadership abilities of effect the changes necessary. As a solid independent voter there is no way I see for her to overcome the mounting baggage and her own unlikability factor to deliver a strong enough mandate from the people to overcome those who oppose her in her own party and the Republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mine is a legitimate question: Doesn't this nation deserve a leader that will build a consensus, reach across the aisle and end the partisan gridlock that festers in Washington? Truly Hillary, at this point, has not demonstrated the leadership abilities of effect the changes necessary. As a solid independent voter there is no way I see for her to overcome the mounting baggage and her own unlikability factor to deliver a strong enough mandate from the people to overcome those who oppose her in her own party and the Republicans.

View attachment 42036

Scott Walker and Rick Perry have histories of doing exactly that. Which one will you support?

 

[Sherry]

If the Dems could produce a credible alternative she'd be complete toast. Most people are sticking with her because they've got no one else.

There is no one else, not of her stature.

The Foundation continuing with biz as usual was a colossal clusterfck of hubris. What's a concern is that no one in her campaign seems able to get that across to her, and possibly even worse is Slick appears equally tone deaf. Anyone remotely bipartisan and who has followed what foundations are and do, realizes there's nothing really more sinister about the Clinton's foundation than ... for example BOA foundation or Heritage .... But still it is at best unseemly to have a candidate or spouse sucking up to dubious individuals for donations. And, it's just unnecessary. Take 8 years off from fundraising for fcks sake, Bill. The money's there, and just have the trustees use the damn interest.

You are a very reasonable person and I happen to think you are absolutely correct....with one exception.

The Clinton are using their foundation for three reasons in rank order.


1. It is their personal piggy-bank. Period. Reports from reputable media outlets such as the NYT say that the Clinton Foundation is keeping anywhere from 93% to 87% of all money raised. That is staggering. Both Bill and Hillary have "expensed" tens of millions of dollars to the Foundation and paid themselves directly.

2. They use their Foundation to trade influence and favors. I do not think any reasonable person call argue otherwise.

3. They do donate between 7%-13% of the Foundation proceeds to charity. At least a small fraction of the money goes to actually help people. But it is far too little.

Well, here's randomly pulled Private Foundation annual report. They hae 540 million in assets, granted out 70 million, which is about 13%, and their annual income on investments from donations and interest was 130 million. So, I don't think your concern about how much the Clinton's Foundations are giving is warranted at all. It's a bs story that you, and others, have fallen for.

https://www.gcfdn.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/GCF_AR_2013.pdf

Greater Cincinnati Foundation Annual Report - The Greater Cincinnati Foundation

The whole idea behind a foundation is for it to be forever. It grows, to have more money, to give for whatever purpose it's set up for.

STILL, it's just not proper for a candidate or spouse to give the appearance of EVEN MAYBE selling access for donations. And, like I said, it's just improper. Slick and Chelsea should let the directors of the Foundations run them, so long as Hill is a candidate. No one else has EVER done this. It's just hubris, and that should give anyone pause about getting on the Hillary bus.

So I said per media sources the Clinton's have donated between 7%-13% of the monies raised by their Foundation to charity.

Your source says 13% which is exactly what I stated. So where is the b.s.?

Plus, I noted you completely avoided my point about the tens of millions of dollars Bill and Hillary have taken out of their Foundation as personal income.

What choice did they have?? They were dead broke with multiple homes. She will never be convincing in feeling our pain.