• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Logic maintains Clinton Foundation is Pay to Play

Fishking

Fishking

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
43,134
Reaction score
16,114
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I've been thinking about this topic and there just doesn't seem to be another logical conclusion to come to in regards to the Clinton Foundation being a pay to play organization. It has been asserted that the charity actually does a great job at what it does. If this were so, then it should stand on it's own merit at this point. The Clinton name would be no more than symbolic in who founded it.

This means that the Clintons should be able to sever all relations to the organization and sign a binding contract to never be associated with it in the future. This would remove the possibility that say...$25 million from Saudi Arabia is actually for a charitable cause and not for influence.

Instead, what have they decided to do? They are handicapping their so-called amazing charity by refusing to accept donations from foreign governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/u...ll-stop-accepting-foreign-donations.html?_r=0

Facing criticism for some of the donations given to his family’s philanthropy, Bill Clinton said on Thursday that the Clinton Foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate money and that he would resign from its board should Hillary Clinton win the presidency.
Click to expand...

Why would the Clintons choose to cause significant damage to the organization just to maintain some connection? They may claim that they will sever ties while she is President but that is not sufficient. We've all seen the cycle of public employment to private sector job/income. Representative So-and-so or General Whathisface leaves their position and then land a nice job as a consultant for a private contracting company or, in this case, a charity that is loaded with money.

If they really cared about the charity, and how well it helps others, they would do that very thing, sever all current and future ties with the organization and allow foreign donations to continue.

Any flaw in the reasoning?

--------------------

Here is a little first hand account from Adam Davidson, a host from NPR so not a right-winger. However, this is not relevant to seemingly apparent logic stated above.

http://adam.curry.com/enc/1472413733.239_slatepodcastoncgi-planetsadamdavidson.mp3
 
Fishking said:
I've been thinking about this topic and there just doesn't seem to be another logical conclusion to come to in regards to the Clinton Foundation being a pay to play organization. It has been asserted that the charity actually does a great job at what it does. If this were so, then it should stand on it's own merit at this point. The Clinton name would be no more than symbolic in who founded it.

This means that the Clintons should be able to sever all relations to the organization and sign a binding contract to never be associated with it in the future. This would remove the possibility that say...$25 million from Saudi Arabia is actually for a charitable cause and not for influence.

Instead, what have they decided to do? They are handicapping their so-called amazing charity by refusing to accept donations from foreign governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/u...ll-stop-accepting-foreign-donations.html?_r=0



Why would the Clintons choose to cause significant damage to the organization just to maintain some connection? They may claim that they will sever ties while she is President but that is not sufficient. We've all seen the cycle of public employment to private sector job/income. Representative So-and-so or General Whathisface leaves their position and then land a nice job as a consultant for a private contracting company or, in this case, a charity that is loaded with money.

If they really cared about the charity, and how well it helps others, they would do that very thing, sever all current and future ties with the organization and allow foreign donations to continue.

Any flaw in the reasoning?

--------------------

Here is a little first hand account from Adam Davidson, a host from NPR so not a right-winger. However, this is not relevant to seemingly apparent logic stated above.

http://adam.curry.com/enc/1472413733.239_slatepodcastoncgi-planetsadamdavidson.mp3
Click to expand...

Not to mention that charity navagator had the Clinton Foundation rated at 2 stars (scam level) for a long time until it was noticed by the media and got bullied into giving it no rating with the disclaimer:

"We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. "

Funny how the major charity watchdog doesn't have the skills to rate a large and well known charity run by a former president.

The Clinton Foundation’s Behind-the-Scenes Battle With a Charity Watchdog Group
 
Crovax said:
Not to mention that charity navagator had the Clinton Foundation rated at 2 stars (scam level) for a long time until it was noticed by the media and got bullied into giving it no rating with the disclaimer:

"We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. "

Funny how the major charity watchdog doesn't have the skills to rate a large and well known charity run by a former president.

The Clinton Foundation’s Behind-the-Scenes Battle With a Charity Watchdog Group
Click to expand...


you totally midrepresent the circumstances
 
katzgar said:
you totally midrepresent the circumstances
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the seeming contradiction in how the Clintons have decided to move forward. Obviously the Clintons are not actually operating or managing the foundation, their contributions would only be symbolic. If it's really just about the foundation, and it's charity work, then why would they chose to cut of foreign donations and not just separate themselves?

For example, Saudi Arabia gave $25 million to the foundation. Resolving the matter in how they have chosen would have meant $25 million less for charity work and helping others. That's a significant hit to take, if it's really just about helping people.
 
We have one crook running for President who brags about bribing politicians and made a fortune screwing people and another crook running for President who has made a career of selling government favors.

Are we doomed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom