Donald Trump Gave $0 to Charity in Past 5 Years

[Draz]

Perhaps Donald Trump isn’t as charitable as he’d like you to believe.

The Washington Post tore through 93 pages worth of 4,844 Donald J. Trump Foundation donations made over a half-decade, finding that not a one of them came directly from the wallet of the GOP candidate. While the Trump Foundation has been generous on paper, the man who controls it didn’t actually donate any of his own money between 2009 and 2014, the newspaper found.

By the way, that lengthy list of contributions the reporters carefully combed through — it came directly from the Trump campaign. It also had one glaring error: A $26 million land donation from 2006 that was too old to be included.

This would all seem to be in conflict with Trump’s claims that he’s given more than $102 million to charity over the past five years. Here’s what Trump did give away, instead: a ton of free golf rounds for charity auctions and raffles. And to be fair, those are, of course, not without value.

While Trump hasn’t personally donated since 2008 to the foundation that bears his name, he does still make the decisions about where the money goes. And some of it hasn’t even gone to charity, instead ending up in the pockets of clients, other businesses, and even tennis star Serena Williams.

It should be noted that 2014 was the most-recent year available, due to the nature of public tax filings. In theory, Trump’s contributions for 2015 may be different, and may have been included in his personal statements.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/donald-trump-gave-0-charity-past-5-years-141420238.html

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Pointless to slander his character, brotha.

Rather let's make a firm intention to
a) aware ourselves on others in need; whether they be illiterate, sick, poor, struggling
and
b) make a firm resolution to do our best to help

Thanks Brotha Draz

[Draz]

Brother money,
We shall not be blind. Sir Donald Trump is a cheap mfer.

[UK2K]

[QUOTE=Draz]In theory, Trump

[FillJackson]

Article corrected its own argument right there.
How so?

They made the request for further information and explanations to the Trump campaign and didn't get it.

[CP3PO]

Brother money,
We shall not be blind. Sir Donald Trump is a cheap mfer.
More greedy than cheap. He'll contribute money if he believes it benefits him in the future. Clearly, he does not think poor people will benefit him. That may have changed recently given that he hopes for votes.

Btw, his tax plan also helps the top 1% despite his claims and experts expect it to increase the national debt to 80% more in the next 20 years. But don't worry, he and his 1% buddies will do fine because he is a business man and he has frequently benefitted even if others involved in his companies have not.

[bigkingsfan]

Good, charity does no one good, those begging bastards.

[UK2K]

How so?

They made the request for further information and explanations to the Trump campaign and didn't get it.

Well we know for a fact he gave the Clinton Foundation AT LEAST $100,000, so the premise of the article is.... not entirely accurate.

[NumberSix]

Well we know for a fact he gave the Clinton Foundation AT LEAST $100,000, so the premise of the article is.... not entirely accurate.
This. We also know that just a couple days ago he donated $100k when he visited the 911 museum and we know he gave $1 million a couple months ago.

[9erempiree]

He just donated a million to the veterans.

[UK2K]

This. We also know that just a couple days ago he donated $100k when he visited the 911 museum and we know he gave $1 million a couple months ago.
The article is titled in a such a way as to NOT look at all his avenues of donation, just the ones he was directly responsible for.

[Nick Young]

Perhaps Donald Trump isn’t as charitable as he’d like you to believe.

The Washington Post tore through 93 pages worth of 4,844 Donald J. Trump Foundation donations made over a half-decade, finding that not a one of them came directly from the wallet of the GOP candidate. While the Trump Foundation has been generous on paper, the man who controls it didn’t actually donate any of his own money between 2009 and 2014, the newspaper found.

By the way, that lengthy list of contributions the reporters carefully combed through — it came directly from the Trump campaign. It also had one glaring error: A $26 million land donation from 2006 that was too old to be included.

This would all seem to be in conflict with Trump’s claims that he’s given more than $102 million to charity over the past five years. Here’s what Trump did give away, instead: a ton of free golf rounds for charity auctions and raffles. And to be fair, those are, of course, not without value.

While Trump hasn’t personally donated since 2008 to the foundation that bears his name, he does still make the decisions about where the money goes. And some of it hasn’t even gone to charity, instead ending up in the pockets of clients, other businesses, and even tennis star Serena Williams.

It should be noted that 2014 was the most-recent year available, due to the nature of public tax filings. In theory, Trump’s contributions for 2015 may be different, and may have been included in his personal statements.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/donald-trump-gave-0-charity-past-5-years-141420238.html
Donald Trump provides jobs for people and industry for America. Also, he recently fundraised millions of dollars to donate to a military veterans charity.

How many people are you employing bro? How much have you given to charity in the past 5 years?:confusedshrug:

[highwhey]

He just donated a million to the veterans.
Veteran bankers probably

[Nick Young]

Veteran bankers probably
Military veterans. Shillary is the bankers candidate

[highwhey]

Military veterans. Shillary is the bankers candidate
Veteran real estate developers probably

[SexSymbol]

I don't think has an obligation to give out their money.
If they want and can, sure, go for it.
We shouldn't judge a person because he's keeping what's his.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I don't think has an obligation to give out their money.
If they want and can, sure, go for it.
We shouldn't judge a person because he's keeping what's his.
The President is supposed to be someone that cares about other people. With that said not donating to his foundation doesn't prove he hasn't donated. This issue won't change anyone's mind anyway.

[FillJackson]

Well we know for a fact he gave the Clinton Foundation AT LEAST $100,000, so the premise of the article is.... not entirely accurate.
This. We also know that just a couple days ago he donated $100k when he visited the 911 museum and we know he gave $1 million a couple months ago.
You need to read the article. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-portrait-of-trump-the-donor-free-rounds-of-golf-but-no-personal-cash/2016/04/10/373b9b92-fb40-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html?wpisrc=nl_draw) His foundation has made charity donations. Trump has not put any of his own money into his foundation in years. His not his charitable givings. The reporter asked about the $1 million dollar personal donation and they would not respond.


According to tax records, the ... check came from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the charity created by Trump in the late 1980s. The same was true on Saturday, when Trump made a well-publicized $100,000 gift to the *National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York. The foundation gave the money after Trump made a brief visit to the museum as he campaigned ahead of next week

[FillJackson]

The article is titled in a such a way as to NOT look at all his avenues of donation, just the ones he was directly responsible for.

With that said not donating to his foundation doesn't prove he hasn't donated.

The article is based on the Trump's claim of how much he has given to charity in the past five years.
The Trump team is the one who put the list together and the heading is


Donald Trump
Charitable Contributions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/a-94-page-list-of-donald-trumps-charitable-contributions-from-the-last-five-years/2013/

To say this this is not the complete list or he has donated in other ways is assuming facts not in evidence.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The article is based on the Trump's claim of how much he has given to charity in the past five years.
The Trump team is the one who put the list together and the heading is


Donald Trump
Charitable Contributions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/a-94-page-list-of-donald-trumps-charitable-contributions-from-the-last-five-years/2013/

To say this this is not the complete list or he has donated in other ways is assuming facts not in evidence.
I said it "doesn't prove" he hasn't donated. To say it does prove he's donated nothing is to assume there are no other facts. He's a rich famous guy that attends all kinds of events. Do we know for a fact he hasn't sat at some dinner and idly wrote a check for some cause? I'm not saying I know he's charitable, just making allowance for the distinct possibility that we don't know all he's involved in.

[FillJackson]

I said it "doesn't prove" he hasn't donated. To say it does prove he's donated nothing is to assume there are no other facts. He's a rich famous guy that attends all kinds of events. Do we know for a fact he hasn't sat at some dinner and idly wrote a check for some cause? I'm not saying I know he's charitable, just making allowance for the distinct possibility that we don't know all he's involved in.

Yes, you are making an assumption.

The assumption is that he lists out his charitable contributions he is not listing ALL of his charitable contributions. I don't think there's a basis for that assumption.

If the list was Donald J Trump Foundation Charitable Contributions, there would be a basis, but currently there is not.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yes, you are making an assumption.

The assumption is that he lists out his charitable contributions he is not listing ALL of his charitable contributions. I don't think there's a basis for that assumption.

If the list was Donald J Trump Foundation Charitable Contributions, there would be a basis, but currently there is not.
No, if I was making that assumption I would say "Trump has made donations." All I did was point out it's possible he gave some money without using his foundation. In order for me to be making an assumption I would have to be talking as if it was a certainty, not a possibility. Now can we be done with this fairly boring semantic argument?

[CP3PO]

I don't think has an obligation to give out their money.
If they want and can, sure, go for it.
We shouldn't judge a person because he's keeping what's his.
He has the right to keep his money, but it demonstrates that he does not care that much about people less fortunate than him. He is greedy, and him as president will continue to protect the top 1% as his tax plan is set to do.

[Draz]

He has the right to keep his money, but it demonstrates that he does not care that much about people less fortunate than him. He is greedy, and him as president will continue to protect the top 1% as his tax plan is set to do.
Remember, he's a world class business man first.

[UK2K]

His foundation has made charity donations. Trump has not put any of his own money into his foundation in years.

If I have a charity, and you donate 100k to it, and my charity then gives that money to some random charity group, then TECHNICALLY the money didn't come from me, but I believe I should get credit for the donation, no?

Which is why, on the first page, I said the title was worded the way it was.

If you cared half as much about who has donated TO Clinton as you care about where Trump has donated his money, we wouldn't even be talking about this. That's a fact.

[KyrieTheFuture]

If I have a charity, and you donate 100k to it, and my charity then gives that money to some random charity group, then TECHNICALLY the money didn't come from me, but I believe I should get credit for the donation, no?

Which is why, on the first page, I said the title was worded the way it was.

If you cared half as much about who has donated TO Clinton as you care about where Trump has donated his money, we wouldn't even be talking about this. That's a fact.
Lol what?! Of course not.

[UK2K]

Lol what?! Of course not.

You don't think so? If I donated $100 to the KyrieTheFuture Cancer foundation, and your foundation donates that money, you don't get to say you donated it, despite the fact the foundation with YOUR name on it gave the money? That's an odd way to look at it.

You're right, even if the Herb Albert foundation gave a million dollars to the Painted Turtle Camp, Herb Albert shouldn't be able to say he's given to charity. Cause it wasn't him, really, just a foundation with his ****ing name on it. Lol

Well, I'll make sure to tell the Donald to bring in ALL the money his charity receives, deposit it into his personal checking account, and then he needs to personally hand write every single one.

Again, if the board was half as concerned about who has donated TO Hillary as opposed to who Trump has donated to, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

We do know he has donated to Clinton, so the premise of the article is false irregardless. Unless, of course, they worded it in such a way as to make it true.

[Draz]

The title of the thread was exact the title of the article from the source. Just copy and paste

[CP3PO]

Remember, he's a world class business man first.
Yep. He looks out for himself first. Everybody else is expendable.

[FillJackson]

If I have a charity, and you donate 100k to it, and my charity then gives that money to some random charity group, then TECHNICALLY the money didn't come from me, but I believe I should get credit for the donation, no?
No you get credit for setting up a charity. Not for the donations.

The simplest way to look at this is YOUR charitable donations can be claimed on your taxes.


If you cared half as much about who has donated TO Clinton as you care about where Trump has donated his money, we wouldn't even be talking about this. That's a fact. Since you bring up the Clintons, we know exactly how much they gave to charity because she had released their of tax returns. Since 2009 they have given about 11%.

No, I don't care who donates to the Clinton Foundation. I care what kind of charity it is. It appears to be an exceedingly well run one with over 85% of funds going to charity programs. It has an A rating and is considered a top tier charity by CharityWatch. It's succeeding in changing people's life fighting AIDS and poverty.

Run a google site search for "Clinton foundation" on an African news site like allafrica.com to see what this charity is about.

"clinton foundation allafrica.com"

[UK2K]

No you get credit for setting up a charity. Not for the donations.

The simplest way to look at this is YOUR charitable donations can be claimed on your taxes.

Since you bring up the Clintons, we know exactly how much they gave to charity because she had released their of tax returns. Since 2009 they have given about 11%.

No, I don't care who donates to the Clinton Foundation. I care what kind of charity it is. It appears to be an exceedingly well run one with over 85% of funds going to charity programs. It has an A rating and is considered a top tier charity by CharityWatch. It's succeeding in changing people's life fighting AIDS and poverty.

Run a google site search for "Clinton foundation" on an African news site like allafrica.com to see what this charity is about.

"clinton foundation allafrica.com"

100% lie, and their tax returns show it.

I know you don't give two shits who she takes money from, because she can do no wrong in your eyes, but you are lying if you are telling me they give out over 85% of their donations, because THEIR OWN RECORDS dont show that.


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.


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.

The Foundation is so ****ed CHARITY NAVIGATOR WONT EVEN RATE IT. Shocker that her AND Big Al's charities are on the watch list.

So not only do you not care where the money comes from, you obviously dont care where it goes either. Stand there with your fingers in your ears and continue lying to yourself.


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.

FYI, ^^that's^^ where the money comes from.

Go **** yourself.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

[FillJackson]

100% lie, and their tax returns show it.

I know you don't give two shits who she takes money from, because she can do no wrong in your eyes, but you are lying if you are telling me they give out over 85% of their donations, because THEIR OWN RECORDS dont show that.





The Foundation is so ****ed CHARITY NAVIGATOR WONT EVEN RATE IT. Shocker that her AND Big Al's charities are on the watch list.

So not only do you not care where the money comes from, you obviously dont care where it goes either. Stand there with your fingers in your ears and continue lying to yourself.



FYI, ^^that's^^ where the money comes from.

Go **** yourself.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
You are misinformed. These articles are incorrect and out of date and I expect an apology when you look into this.

The reason these articles are incorrect is the Clinton Foundation is a different form of charity than something like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is mainly a grant giving charity. That is they give money to others to do the charitable work, usually other established charities.
The Clinton Foundation is "an operational foundation,"t that is an organization does the actual work themselves. That is they hire employees and set up on the ground charitable programs. That is why this quote is wrong. All they did was look at the amount of grants given out, not the amount that went to programs. [QUOTE]The Clinton family

[Nanners]

saudi arabia has given the clinton foundation between $10 and $25 million dollars.

[UK2K]

You are misinformed. These articles are incorrect and out of date and I expect an apology when you look into this.

The reason these articles are incorrect is the Clinton Foundation is a different form of charity than something like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation is mainly a grant giving charity. That is they give money to others to do the charitable work, usually other established charities.
The Clinton Foundation is "an operational foundation,"t that is an organization does the actual work themselves. That is they hire employees and set up on the ground charitable programs. That is why this quote is wrong. All they did was look at the amount of grants given out, not the amount that went to programs. Factcheck.org looked into this claim only $9 million (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/) was spent on charity.
Charity Navigator had rated the foundation and then unrated it. Not because it was ****ED, but because it didn't fit their model. (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vw1KkDArLbJ)


The Fact Check Article goes into a lot more detail about this.

Charity Navigator DOES NOT have the Clinton Foundation (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vw1KkDArLbJ) on it's watchlist. It was removed last year, once the Foundation provided more public information


Charity Navigator pointed to these two documents
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9cghP8LkyfXeFJnYmV0ZWVMZFE/view?pref=2&pli=1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9cghP8LkyfXMzNZYzFfbEJoMEZnZHJjU0RxSGVSaUg5cEpV/view?pref=2&pli=1

Easiest way to get up to speed on this is to read that Fact Check article which points to CharityWatch's rating on the Clinton Foundation. Their latest rating from this month gives them an A rating (A+ is the very highest), places the Foundation in its list of top rating charities and says 88% of expenses go to charitable programs.

Debating anything with you is like debating anything with someone religious.

[UK2K]

saudi arabia has given the clinton foundation between $10 and $25 million dollars.

And the Russian executive that was given all kinds of goodies here in the states, his wife donated $130 million.

He said he doesn't care who donates to it. Didn't you hear him?

[FillJackson]

To be clear the following in your post is not true

How the Foundation is setup and spends it's money.
--100% lie, and their tax returns show it. article that said this didn't understand how to evaluate this type of foundation.
The Foundation is so ****ed CHARITY NAVIGATOR WONT EVEN RATE IT. Not what Charity Navigator says
Shocker that her... charities are on the watch list. Was True. Taken off watch list after satisfied Charity Navigator's questions and filing amended tax returns.
but spent just $9 million on direct aid. This is only grants not all charity programs
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses This a compounded part of not understanding the 6% vs 88%. A huge amount of these expenses are for the charitable expenses themselves. When an employee would fly to Africa on charitable work, that is a valid program expense, it is not overhead.

Uranium
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. This came from that hit job book written by a political operative. It had no solid evidence and this charge fell apart within weeks.

A. The Author has admitted in several interview he has no evidence for his charges and even got called out by Fox News on this. In response the claimed Clinton had authority to veto this deal which is not true.

B. This deal was reviewed by national security committee, CFIUS and it was not found to be a security risk and was approved. Homeland Security and the Department of Defense on are on that committee

C. There is zero evidence that Hillary Clinton even knew about this deal, because the process around this committee is handled at the staff level, unless there are disagreements.

From Fact Check (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/)

The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.

.....The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)
Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal.

Wallace, April 26: Nine separate agencies and they [Clinton campaign officials] point out there’s no hard evidence, and you don’t cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?

.....
WALLACE: But, again, if I may, you don't have a single piece of evidence that she was involved in this deal, that she sent a memo to the person -- the State Department representative who was on this committee and said, hey, we want to approve the Uranium One sale.

D. Clinton never intervened at all on this uranium deal. (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) One way or the other
One official involved in the process said Clinton had nothing to do with the decision in the Uranium One case. Jose Hernandez, who as former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs was the State Department’s principal representative on the committee, rejected the notion that Clinton’s foundation ties had any bearing on the deal. “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,”

acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s Frank Giustra says he sold his interest in this company in 2007 during the Bush administration. (http://blog.ceo.ca/2015/04/23/statement-of-frank-giustra/) Something the author should have known about. EDIT: In his ABC interview the author did admit Giustra had sold his shares. :facepalm

[Draz]

God dam, that's bread

[FillJackson]

saudi arabia has given the clinton foundation between $10 and $25 million dollars.
YUP.

And the Clinton Foundation has taken that money to fight Aids and Poverty in Africa.

I know you're into purity, but do you have a problem with Saudi Arabian money being used for good?

It's not a political action committee, it's a charity.

[FillJackson]

Debating anything with you is like debating anything with someone religious.

That's because you swallowed a thinly sourced hit job and then didn't read any of the followup. This didn't even have enough evidence to rise to a scandal and it sank like a stone.

This was basically and attempt at swiftboating the clintons....an attempt by political opponents to take a strength of candidate and make it seem unsavory. The author admits he has no evidence of wrongdoing.

[FillJackson]

And the Russian executive that was given all kinds of goodies here in the states, his wife donated $130 million.
What's this refer to?

[Nanners]

YUP.

And the Clinton Foundation has taken that money to fight Aids and Poverty in Africa.

I know you're into purity, but do you have a problem with Saudi Arabian money being used for good?

It's not a political action committee, it's a charity.

Yeah its not remotely suspect that the Saudis would give millions of dollars to a charity that counts confronting climate change and empowering women as 2 of their most important work areas. :oldlol:


We believe that a community can only reach its potential by involving everyone in its social and economic life. That’s why we build programs to empower women and girls, and why we focus on expanding access to education; expanding economic opportunity; and providing critical health care to young mothers and their newborns. Our goal is to lift millions of women out of poverty—and with them, families and whole communities.

I can see why the saudis would support this charity, their interests and worldview are clearly aligned. :rolleyes:

womens rights in saudi arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia)


Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are limited in comparison to many of its neighbors. The World Economic Forum 2013 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 127th out of 136 countries for gender parity.[6] All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving. Saudi women constitute 13% of the country's native workforce as of 2015.

[Nanners]

Saudi Arabia, one of the most brutal and oppressive dictatorships on the planet and one of the primary backers of ISIS, donated money to the clinton foundation because they just wanted to do some good in the world. No ulterior motives here folks!! :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

ill just leave this here - authoritarian regimes that donated to clintons charity were given massive weapons deals by hillarys state dept (http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187)

[Draz]

Saudi Arabia, one of the most brutal and oppressive dictatorships on the planet and one of the primary backers of ISIS, donated money to the clinton foundation because they just wanted to do some good in the world. No ulterior motives here folks!! :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

ill just leave this here - authoritarian regimes that donated to clintons charity were given massive weapons deals by hillarys state dept (http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187)
Sounds legit to me

[FillJackson]

Saudi Arabia, one of the most brutal and oppressive dictatorships on the planet and one of the primary backers of ISIS, donated money to the clinton foundation because they just wanted to do some good in the world. No ulterior motives here folks!! :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

ill just leave this here - authoritarian regimes that donated to clintons charity were given massive weapons deals by hillarys state dept (http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187)
:facepalm

Yes, the Saudis might have ulterior motives. You may want to look into the history of philanthropy. Andrew Carnegie hired Pinkerton guns to break the steel strike at Homestead AND later he built 1700 public libraries.

If you have nothing other than ulterior motives of the Saudis, I'll take the cheaper AIDS medicine for Africans and the farmers learning about soil rotation and growing enough crops to export, thank you.

What you don't have, is a single bit of evidence of quid pro quo and some bizarre logic that the Secretary of State overrules the President.

Hillary's State Department? Beneath your usual level of logic. State Department carries out the President's policy. Do you think Hillary was running some rogue foreign policy? You also know that Congress approves Arm Sales as well, right?

Do you actually believe none of these deals would have went through if these donations weren't made? I bet we never sold arms to Saudi Arabia before Clinton was at state and these arms sales must have just flat out stopped when Clinton left State.

Do you believe Clinton will stop her support of women's rights because Saudi Arabia donated her charity?

How about the Swedish Postcode Lottery? They are big donors to the Clinton's charity. Must be up to no good as well.

[FillJackson]

Also that article, didn't disclose that author worked for and considers Bernie Sanders a friend.

[Nanners]

Yes, the Saudis might have ulterior motives. You may want to look into the history of philanthropy. Andrew Carnegie hired Pinkerton guns to break the steel strike at Homestead AND later he built 1700 public libraries.

Carnegie was an industrialist who assaulted his striking workers for financial reasons. The Saudis are repressive dictators who fund terrorism around the globe for religious reasons. Great comparison ****face.



Do you actually believe none of these deals would have went through if these donations weren't made? I bet we never sold arms to Saudi Arabia before Clinton was at state and these arms sales must have just flat out stopped when Clinton left State.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.



Do you believe Clinton will stop her support of women's rights because Saudi Arabia donated her charity?

nah Hillary only changes her positions when the political winds in this country start blowing in the opposite direction, and for the most part americans support womens rights.



How about the Swedish Postcode Lottery? They are big donors to the Clinton's charity. Must be up to no good as well.

Perhaps you could show me where I said that literally every contributor to clinton is up to something shady?

[Nanners]

Also that article, didn't disclose that author worked for and considers Bernie Sanders a friend.

have you ever disclosed that you currently work for the hillary clinton campaign? :oldlol:

[ALBballer]

Hillary is a crook and if Bernie wasn't so left on his economic policies I would probably support him because I admire his stands towards getting money out politics.

[FillJackson]

For folks who don't know how foreign arms sales work.

There is a group at State and One at Defense that coordinates this. State determines which countries we will ship arms to. Defense carries it out. For large sales Congress needs to approve it. They have 30 days to approve. So State, Defense and Congress basically coordinate and collaborate on the deal well before it's submitted to Congress.

So there's no surprises and the details of these deals are broadly known. The idea that one person could be pulling a switcheroo is based on a cartoonish idea of how this works.

[Nanners]

During Hillary Clinton

[FillJackson]

And yet the "Buckets to Backpacks" campaign to buy water backpacks in Rwanda kept going.

The 1,000,000 prize to social entrepreneurs to crowdsource social solutions kept going.

The expansion of CorpsAfrica (http://www.corpsafrica.org/) kept going.

More HIV infected mothers in Tanzania were able to get retroviral drugs during their pregnancy to prevent passing the infection to their newborns.

All kept rolling along.

[Nanners]

yeah cause who cares about a little corruption if some kid in rwanda gets a water backpack out of the deal :oldlol:

[Nanners]

Most charities are staffed by folks who have spent a lifetime in nonprofits, writing grants or doing overseas field work. The Clinton Foundation is staffed by political operatives. It has been basically a parking lot for Clinton campaign workers

[FillJackson]

Ah, yes, I love it leftist/liberal/progressive purist starts echoing the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

Tuesday should be fun.

[Nanners]

Ah, yes, I love it leftist/liberal/progressive starts echoing the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

Tuesday should be fun.

so you are saying none of those people ever worked for the clinton foundation?

if the wsj is publishing lies to smear hillary you should probably notify your employer, i dont think she would be very happy about it.

[Nanners]

Hillary Clinton has given $15m to charity since 2007

$14.8m of that went to the Clinton Foundation

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/15/sen-bernie-sanders-releases-tax-returns-2014/83074944/