Elections Hillary v. Trump Presidential Debate Three

Who won the third Presidential debate?

  • Total voters
    287
  • Poll closed .
Cubo de Sangre said:
Yep, gibberish.

I don't know what "programming" is. I know what "operations" is, I think. And to be "proud" when it comes to a "charity" I'd imagine that "90%" going to whatever the the chosen causes were. But my understanding from previous news articles is that the 90% goes to running the foundation and the chosen causes get the 10%. Me personally, as someone less informed than you, and far more fucking informed than the average viewer, found that misleading. Presuming I hadn't erred in my understanding of the 90/10 split.

Good to know I can count on you to look at things from multiple angles then. So in this instance you can see how millions of people thinking the needy in Haiti got 90% (vs. 10%) could influence their judgment as to weather Haitians had good cause to dislike the Clintons. I actually thought it was one of her better moves of the night. The rest of her game in this debate I'd put on par with @Fawlty's average effort.
Click to expand...

86.9 cents of every dollar donated goes to programs
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Cubo de Sangre said:
Yep, gibberish.

I don't know what "programming" is. I know what "operations" is, I think. And to be "proud" when it comes to a "charity" I'd imagine that "90%" going to whatever the the chosen causes were. But my understanding from previous news articles is that the 90% goes to running the foundation and the chosen causes get the 10%. Me personally, as someone less informed than you, and far more fucking informed than the average viewer, found that misleading. Presuming I hadn't erred in my understanding of the 90/10 split.

Good to know I can count on you to look at things from multiple angles then. So in this instance you can see how millions of people thinking the needy in Haiti got 90% (vs. 10%) could influence their judgment as to weather Haitians had good cause to dislike the Clintons. I actually thought it was one of her better moves of the night. The rest of her game in this debate I'd put on par with @Fawlty's average effort.
Click to expand...


The Clinton Foundation is what's called a public charity. That means it mostly raises money from other people and foundations (including, by the way, a gift of between $100,000 and $250,000 from the Trump Foundation in 2009). The Clinton Foundation spends that money on things like HIV and malaria prevention in Africa. It spends close to 90 cents of every dollar it gets on charitable causes, and earns top marks from watchdog groups.

 
Hah! I just saw a bunch of social media stuff calling for the moderator (Chris Wallace) to be put on the presidential ballot.
If he'd been in this threads poll, I think I'd have changed my vote.
 
No matter how you view the 3rd debate, one thing it was not: the big (ly) gamechanger.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Yep, gibberish.

I don't know what "programming" is. I know what "operations" is, I think. And to be "proud" when it comes to a "charity" I'd imagine that "90%" going to whatever the the chosen causes were. But my understanding from previous news articles is that the 90% goes to running the foundation and the chosen causes get the 10%. Me personally, as someone less informed than you, and far more fucking informed than the average viewer, found that misleading. Presuming I hadn't erred in my understanding of the 90/10 split.

Good to know I can count on you to look at things from multiple angles then. So in this instance you can see how millions of people thinking the needy in Haiti got 90% (vs. 10%) could influence their judgment as to weather Haitians had good cause to dislike the Clintons. I actually thought it was one of her better moves of the night. The rest of her game in this debate I'd put on par with @Fawlty's average effort.
Click to expand...

The Clinton foundation donates almost 90% of what it takes in to programs; i.e. the people who need it. It uses 10-12% on overhead i.e. operating costs.

For these reasons, it is a highly rated charity by all independent charity watch groups.

You can easily look this stuff up on Google btw.
 
Ruprecht said:
Hah! I just saw a bunch of social media stuff calling for the moderator (Chris Wallace) to be put on the presidential ballot.
If he'd been in this threads poll, I think I'd have changed my vote.
Click to expand...
If just about any swinging dick with a name was able to get on the ballot at this point they could seriously win it.
 
GearSolidMetal said:
I didn't watch the debate, yet, but from what I'm hearing Trump did pretty good overall until he denied he would accept the election results if it doesn't go his way.
Click to expand...
From what i read, they didn't ask Hillary the same question, and we all know that any acknowledgement of the possibility of defeat is damaging, so that absolutely can't be a question just posed to one candidate on stage.
 
King of Fists said:
The Clinton foundation donates almost 90% of what it takes in to programs; i.e. the people who need it. It uses 10-12% on overhead i.e. operating costs.

For these reasons, it is a highly rated charity by all independent charity watch groups.

You can easily look this stuff up on Google btw.
Click to expand...

Most of their money or giving is given to people to go over and show others how to do something. Not direct contributions. So they hire someone to fly over to Africa and work with the people on....

Instead of giving money to the African people, they pay others to go teach them stuff.
 
Last edited:
CableandThanos said:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.

An accountant for the Clinton Foundation did not return The Post’s calls seeking clarification on its expenses Friday, and a spokesperson for the group refused comment.
Click to expand...

You should probably fact check your scrubby copy and paste propaganda articles before posting them. You say charity navigator refuses to rate them?

Let's see what charity navigator themselves have to say

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
 
King of Fists said:
You should probably fact check your scrubby copy and paste propaganda articles before posting them. You say charity navigator refuses to rate them?

Let's see what charity navigator themselves have to say

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Click to expand...
yes they were placed on the watch list but have been remved.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...moves-clinton-foundation-from-its-watch-list/

with its shitty record to giving, but we donate to "internal programs" it should be questioned.

Charity Navigator will continue its practice of offering the Clinton Foundation no formal rating, indicating that it has an "atypical business model" that cannot be "accurately captured" by the group's current rating methodology
 
CableandThanos said:
yes they were placed on the watch list but have been remved.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...moves-clinton-foundation-from-its-watch-list/

with its shitty record to giving, but we donate to "internal programs" it should be questioned.
Click to expand...

The requirements for being put on the watch list are literally being questioned in the media. The requirements for being removed from the list are providing detailed records which they did.

How much did you contribute to charity last year?
 
CableandThanos said:
DERP, how much did you

And I sure dont have pay to play scandals in my charitable donations. LOL
Click to expand...

I donated enough ;)

And like it or not it's a highly rated charity by independent charity groups. Guess you'll just have to calm your rustled jimmies and deal with it.
 
King of Fists said:
I donated enough ;)

And like it or not it's a highly rated charity by independent charity groups. Guess you'll just have to calm your rustled jimmies and deal with it.
Click to expand...
Or you can admit that it is shady as hell with money flowing into it and then they same people donating receiving special treatment or deals for the donations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,191
Messages
55,542,734
Members
174,823
Latest member
Zygmunt

Share this page

Back
Top