• 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!

Bill Clinton foundation has spent more than $50M on travel expenses

j-mac said:
:lamo You have over 64K postings.....I think everyone knows your crackpot theories....
Click to expand...


Over 64k postings, but apparently still makes enough coherent arguments to garner a 39% thank you rating as opposed to your 25% with 50 thousand fewer posts. You may disagree with the Liberal view but to call it "crackpot" is a bit of a stretch. Consider the fact that there are conservatives in this forum with a similar track record to Redress who I disagree with but still respect. You, however, may want to look at the mirror when it comes to your theories as it seems that not to many people agree with you...at all

jmacapproval.jpgredressapproval.jpg
 
Midwest Lib said:
You, however, may want to look at the mirror when it comes to your theories as it seems that not to many people agree with you...at all
Click to expand...

I don't want to make this about J-Mac (as it's not about J-Mac), but I have largely the same thanks rate as him. What is noticeable is that he doesn't gather the same kind of thanks from his fellow self proclaimed right leaning partisans. My low rate is partially because I regularly piss off both sides (yet still get called a partisan...go figure). When an obvious partisan hack job cannot get thanks from other massive partisan hackjobs, that's a sign of something.

Anyways, hit J-Mac on his bad arguments, not on his lack of thanks. He has plenty of bad arguments to choose from.
 
obvious Child said:
I don't want to make this about J-Mac (as it's not about J-Mac), but I have largely the same thanks rate as him. What is noticeable is that he doesn't gather the same kind of thanks from his fellow self proclaimed right leaning partisans. My low rate is partially because I regularly piss off both sides (yet still get called a partisan...go figure). When an obvious partisan hack job cannot get thanks from other massive partisan hackjobs, that's a sign of something.
Click to expand...

You know, you're right. I actually took a peek at a few others as well as soon as I posted that and he actually isn't lower than a lot of members. As I myself have fewer than 500 posts I'm certainly not one to talk a big game either. I chose to call him out because of his ridiculous attack on a member who I feel to be very intellectually consistent. My arbitrary "ranking" system doesn't really matter at the end of the day anyway :)

Anyway, about the topic at hand...Pretty simple. If you don't like it, don't donate. If Hillary uses it illegally for a presidential run, then I will have a problem. Until then, if ya aint paying, who cares.
 
Grant said:
The problem appears to be that the Clintons are using the Clinton Foundation as a 501(c)3 tax free non-profit organization while Hillary Clinton is using it as a springboard to the Presidency. Recall this was the same tax code under which the IRS investigated conservative groups.
This from the NYT, and even they have trouble with it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...ion-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=1&

Hillary Clinton's next act: The family foundation - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com

Robert Gibbs has said she intends to use the Foundation as a "springboard to the Presidency', which is clearly illegal.
Click to expand...

That's fair - if they are abusing tax law for political purposes, I hope they're called on it - however, with Obama and Holder in charge, I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
 
obvious Child said:
You have proof this?

FYI, you're dealing with a CPA who has years in non-profit work. You make an ignorant comment, I will point it out.



Conjecture at the moment, probably true, but still conjecture. Furthermore, hacks will argue that any promotion of Clinton will do this. Even if the activities that are involved have nothing to do with her Presidential Campaign.



Flat Up Wrong. There has been nothing about the Clinton Foundation being used as a non-profit to directly provide political advertising for Clinton or against her potential opponents. You are entirely wrong here and you are highly ignorant of what the code actually says. Saying that the code in which the IRS went after political groups (including liberal ones, which were the only ones denied, I see how you left that out), and this is extremely wrong. Clinton getting exposure from non-profit work such as disease prevention is not the same as running a non-profit that doesn't have to disclose donors and using it to directly influence political campaigns by explicitly endorsing or attacking candidates. Learn the law before opening your mouth.



How does this support your claim at all? Did you even read the article? Where does it say anything that supports your claims?



The only part of the article that remotely supports you is this, but that depends how it's done. Writing up a biography used on the website or to be read before she speaks is hardly the same as running an ad in a state saying X candidate is bad.



Why? How is using a non-profit to raise your exposure without direct political activity equate to breaking the 501(c) law?

You made so many errors here it's not funny.
Click to expand...

Naivety can be extremely comforting. Slick Willie would be proud, "oblivious" child.
 
Last edited:
Midwest Lib said:
Over 64k postings, but apparently still makes enough coherent arguments to garner a 39% thank you rating as opposed to your 25% with 50 thousand fewer posts. You may disagree with the Liberal view but to call it "crackpot" is a bit of a stretch. Consider the fact that there are conservatives in this forum with a similar track record to Redress who I disagree with but still respect. You, however, may want to look at the mirror when it comes to your theories as it seems that not to many people agree with you...at all

View attachment 67152404View attachment 67152405
Click to expand...

What a falacious, disingenuous argument. According to your deductions, my "like" rate at over 75% would top all of you and therefore you must accept my word on everything.

You do realize that "likes" don't indicate a percentage of approval for all comments posted, don't you?
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Typical Con strawman "Lberals say this..." when no liberal ever really says that except in your head. I've never heard a liberal say that people shouldn't be able to spend their own money on whatever they want.

This is foundation money, not government money. It's not your money, it's not your outrage. Are you just bored that there's nothing worth the effort to bash Libs?
Click to expand...

Oh look they're circling the wagons. Surprise!
 
American said:
Oh look they're circling the wagons. Surprise!
Click to expand...

Spreading facts is circling the wagons now? Can you point out one thing he said that was untrue?
 
Redress said:
Can you point out one thing he said that was untrue?
Click to expand...


Sure...

Midwest Lib said:
....You may disagree with the Liberal view but to call it "crackpot" is a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

You're welcome....:mrgreen: (pssst....I'm joking here so don't get your granny panties in a bunch)
 
What? The Clintons need a slush fund for travel. It's one of the things the "Foundation" was created for in the first place. Does anybody really expect the Clintons to have to pay for that themselves? C'mon. It's the Clintons - not some Joe Schmoe and family going to Disneyland. They don't travel light.
 
j-mac said:
Oh man! $50 million? That is truly 1%er figures.....I wonder when OWS will camp on their doorstep?....Private Jets, Flying 'students', multiple international trips for Hillary, and Chelsea....Liberals have the nerve to furl their brow's when an SUV passes by, yet I am sure this carbon foot print is ok for them....

Remember friends, the rules that a liberal progressive lays out for you never is meant to apply to themselves....
Click to expand...

Ehhh...if you think Bill or Hillary are liberal progressives you're crazy. They may be socially liberal but their economics are definitely pro-Wall Street and AT LEAST centrist (I'd argue conservative). It was the Clintons that led the Democratic party shift to the center and catered to big Wall Street firms.
 
Why do all Libs have these stupid things ? " Foundations " ?

My Aunt and Uncle have one and they live in....Berkely.

I get they are tax shelters, and given the innate Sociopathic mindset of your average Liberal I understand they're being used for personal gain above all, but C'mon.

It's a bit of a cliche.
 
All you need to know is the mission of the William J. Clinton foundation:

THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON FOUNDATION WORKS TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE.

If there is a more worthy cause, I can't think of what it would be.
 
iliveonramen said:
Ehhh...if you think Bill or Hillary are
liberal progressives you're crazy. They may be socially liberal but their economics are definitely pro-Wall Street and AT LEAST centrist (I'd argue conservative). It was the Clintons that led the Democratic party shift to the center and catered to big Wall Street firms.
Click to expand...

There's a interesting take on the issue.

The Clintons, they're using altruism to profit because they're Conservatives, or a variation of the right wing.

No, its more like...The Clintons, they use altruism to profit because they can get away with it and they're disgusting human beings.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
All you need to know is the mission of
the William J. Clinton foundation:

THE WILLIAM J. CLINTON FOUNDATION WORKS TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF
PEOPLE IN THE U.S. AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE.

If there is a more worthy cause, I can't think of what it would be.
Click to expand...

Ooh...I'm getting my checkbook.

It should say ..

" THE WILLIAM J CLINTON FOUNDATION WORKS TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF BILL AND HILLARY'S PERSONAL WEALTH AND TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL TRAVEL...FOR BILL AND HILLARY."
 
Fenton said:
There's a interesting take on the issue.

The Clintons, they're using altruism to profit because they're Conservatives, or a variation of the right wing.

No, its more like...The Clintons, they use altruism to profit because they can get away with it and they're disgusting human beings.
Click to expand...

No my take is that the the premise of the OP...this idea that the Clintons have ever been some progressive super liberal couple is just incorrect. The OWS or other more economically left leaning groups have never been fans of the Clintons and what they advocate in regards to economics.

As for using altruism to profit....that's not true. Bill Clinton can go do a couple of speeches and get ridiculous amounts of money. This idea he needs to create some massive organization to pad his pockets is pretty hard to buy.
 
It is on the donors. Giving money to a politician is always stupid and wasteful in my view. If that's what the donors want, that is what they get.
 
humbolt said:
What? The Clintons need a slush fund for travel. It's one of the things the "Foundation" was created for in the first place. Does anybody really expect the Clintons to have to pay for that themselves? C'mon. It's the Clintons - not some Joe Schmoe and family going to Disneyland. They don't travel light.
Click to expand...

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

I guess that life is nothing but a game to folks like this, always scheming to get more and more! I'm sure that everything they do is legal, so I assume that when you only have over $100 million dollars in your piggy bank, all that's left to do is scheme to get more. BTW, did they get enough donations from the Joe Schmoes of this world to pay the vendors from her 2008 campaign yet? She apparently didn't have the money, poor thing! :thumbdown:
 
iliveonramen said:
No my take is that the the premise of the
OP...this idea that the Clintons have ever been some progressive super liberal couple is just incorrect. The OWS or other more economically left leaning groups have never been fans of the Clintons and what they advocate in regards to economics.

As for using altruism to profit....that's not true. Bill Clinton can go do a couple of speeches and get ridiculous amounts of money. This idea he needs to create some massive organization to pad his pockets is pretty hard to buy.
Click to expand...

ANY expense he or Hillary or Chelsea avoids by using their " non-profit" is a expense they get to keep.

Its padding their pockets whether you agree or not.
 
fmw said:
It is on the donors. Giving money to a politician is always stupid and wasteful in my view. If that's what the donors want, that is what they get.
Click to expand...
Absolutely...unless the foundation itself is registered as a 501c3.
 
Grant said:
You've never heard a liberal say the rich should pay more taxes?
Click to expand...

That, yes. But after taxes, I've never heard anybody say that you shouldn't be able to spend that money as you please.

Basically, unless the Clinton Foundation is evading taxes, this shouldn't be an issue.
 
Fenton said:
Ooh...I'm getting my checkbook.

It should say ..

" THE WILLIAM J CLINTON FOUNDATION WORKS TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF BILL AND HILLARY'S PERSONAL WEALTH AND TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL TRAVEL...FOR BILL AND HILLARY."
Click to expand...

And if people want to give them money, why is that an issue for you?
 
Fenton said:
ANY expense he or Hillary or Chelsea avoids by using their " non-profit" is a expense they get to keep.

Its padding their pockets whether you agree or not.
Click to expand...

Sure...like every CEO/Business owner/individual that can write stuff off for work etc.

I don't understand how conservatives always hold Democrats or Liberals up to this mythical standard they don't hold their own politicians too....and if a Liberal doesn't meet that mythical standard it's apparently time for outrage.
 
Fenton said:
Why do all Libs have these stupid things ? " Foundations " ?

My Aunt and Uncle have one and they live in....Berkely.

I get they are tax shelters, and given the innate Sociopathic mindset of your average Liberal I understand they're being used for personal gain above all, but C'mon.

It's a bit of a cliche.
Click to expand...

Conservatives have foundations. Unless you're trying to tell me that Barbara and Laura Bush are Liberals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom