Ralonzo Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Still has her overcharge button, I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Hillary to deliver speech on Monday begging millennials to vote for her If you’ve followed the polls this week, you know exactly what this is about. Gary Johnson and, to a lesser extent, Jill Stein are peeling off huge numbers of voters aged 18-29, which is turning a tight two-way race into a Trump lead in the four-way. She could afford to give away youngvoters back when she was leading by six points. She can’t afford it anymore. So it’s all hands on deck for Democrats, with Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Michelle Obama set to campaign for Clinton soon to put the fear of God into millennials. And now Hillary herself is set for a speech on Monday aimed squarely at that audience. The goal here may have less to do with tearing down Trump than with simply making sureyoung voters understand that Trump has a real chance of winning now. Voters spent most of the summer believing that isn’t true, especially after Clinton’s big convention bounce pushed her out to landslide-type margins in battleground states. Some young adults may have decided at the time that her big lead meant they didn’t need to vote for her in the name of stoppingTrump and could go with a more idealistic third-party choice. Clinton’s message on Monday will be some variation of “no, really, look at the polls, I’m a terrible candidate who’s going to lose without you.” Two words: Free sh*t, starting with student loan forgiveness. Even if she gradually makes the sale to millennials, though, she has another new problem with the wider electorate. Check out these numbers from YouGov: That’s a 13-point drop in just eight days. Among Democrats specifically, the number who say Hillary’s health is good enough for her to serve effectively as president is down 20 points in the same period, from 84 percent to 64. Trump, meanwhile, scores 63 percent compared to Hillary’s 39 when voters are asked if he’s physically fit to serve. Among independents, his rating is literally double what hers is — he’s at 64 percent while she’s at 32 — and when asked which of the two is in better health, indies split 53/9 for him. It’s strange but probably true that after all of the analysis of the past 15 months, the election may be decided by Hillary Clinton having one more health episode in public. If she swoons again, these numbers might bottom out completely as voters conclude she’s literally unfit for office and that’s ballgame. Imagine being a member of her staff knowing that it could all go up in smoke at any moment. The silver lining for Team Hillary, I guess, is that her expectations for the debates have been reduced. Even if she’s mediocre, voters will draw some sort of positive inference about her health if she’s able to stay lively for the duration in each of them. “High energy,” as Trump likes to say, should be what she’s aiming for. Even if she’s on her game, though, it’s hard to see what the new, somewhat more disciplined Trump could do to blow his chances given how low expectations will be for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 POLITICOVerified account @politico 2h2 hours ago Clinton: "Let's reject the cynicism, the bullying, the divisive rhetoric my opponent uses to make us afraid." Yes Hillary.........that sounds deplorable........... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Yes Hillary.........that sounds deplorable........... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 David Brock Offers Money for New Dirt on Donald Trump Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is offering to pay for new information on Donald Trump, hoping that damaging audio or video on the Republican presidential candidate will be submitted to his super PAC. Brock, founder of the left-wing Media Matters and operator of Correct the Record super PAC, recently posted the plea on Correct the Record’s website and is referring to the project as “TrumpLeaks,” NBC News reported. Brock asked for video or audio of Trump that has yet to be released. http://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-offers-money-new-dirt-donald-trump/ 'Tsunami of unease' overwhelms Clinton supporters... Questions over her health rising on Left... Just 5.7% Of Clinton Foundation Budget Went To Charity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 Just 5.7% Of Clinton Foundation Budget Went To Charity... "Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.” Any other charitable organization (and I use that term extremely loosely) would be publicly shamed for such piss-poor numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 "Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.” Any other charitable organization (and I use that term extremely loosely) would be publicly shamed for such piss-poor numbers. I posted this a couple of years ago about a prior year comparing the paltry Clinton Foundation charity spending compared to the Koch Brothers Foundation. The Koch brothers gave out slightly less than the CF but spent less than 500k distributing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 million of their own damn money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 "Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.” Any other charitable organization (and I use that term extremely loosely) would be publicly shamed for such piss-poor numbers. I wish I could set up a money laundering scheme that good. I just lack the one thing the Clintons have that makes it all work: immunity from prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) David Brock Offers Money for New Dirt on Donald Trump Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is offering to pay for new information on Donald Trump, hoping that damaging audio or video on the Republican presidential candidate will be submitted to his super PAC. Brock, founder of the left-wing Media Matters and operator of Correct the Record super PAC, recently posted the plea on Correct the Record’s website and is referring to the project as “TrumpLeaks,” NBC News reported. Brock asked for video or audio of Trump that has yet to be released. http://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-offers-money-new-dirt-donald-trump/ 'Tsunami of unease' overwhelms Clinton supporters... Questions over her health rising on Left... Just 5.7% Of Clinton Foundation Budget Went To Charity... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/ Priebus said, "The fact is" the Clinton Foundation has "got about 80 percent in overhead and 20 percent of the money is actually getting into the places it should." Priebus is incorrectly reading IRS documents. Only a small amount of the donations collected by the Clinton Foundation are awarded as grants to other nonprofit groups. But that doesn’t mean that every other dollar is "overhead." The Clinton Foundation spends between 80-90 percent on program services, which experts say is the standard in the industry to define charitable works. It spends the majority of its money directly on projects rather than through third-party grants. Conversely, only between 10-20 percent is spent on management of the foundation and fundraising activities, which is tagged as "overhead." Priebus’ claim rates False. Edited September 17, 2016 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/ Priebus' claim that 80% of the CF costs are overhead is false. It's 94%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 Tens of Thousands of Files from Clinton, Blumenthal Computers Available on Deep Web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 17, 2016 Author Share Posted September 17, 2016 Tens of Thousands of Files from Clinton, Blumenthal Computers Available on Deep Web "Congress has learned that the FBI knew about the foreign exfiltration of that document from Clinton's server weeks before Director James Comey announced his decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her use of private email. Comey testified to Congress that Guccifer denied hacking Clinton and that Clinton was "probably" hacked, but did not allude to having received any information that she was hacked." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Tens of Thousands of Files from Clinton, Blumenthal Computers Available on Deep Web Blumenthal. Blumenthal. Where have a I heard that name before? Baskin, does it ring a bell to you? No? Damn. I swear I've heard it before. Oh, wait. Wasn't he the Clinton surrogate who started the birther issue on Obama long before Donald Trump? Isn't he the one the Obama's told Hillary as SoS not to hire because he's such a dirtbag, and she hired the dirtbag anyway? And had him providing counsel on foreign affairs? Oh, well, if those emails exist, I'm sure they don't really have any dirt to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 ...................................................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) Technology Breaches the Media Maginot Line by Clarice Feldman Last week Hillary attacked Trump supporters as “deplorables”, accusing half of them of them of being racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic. In this she was following Obama’s disparaging of millions of voters. As Victor Davis Hanson observed: On his recent Asian tour, President Obama characterized his fellow Americans (the most productive workers in the world) as “lazy.” In fact, he went on to deride Americans for a list of supposed transgressions ranging from the Vietnam War to environmental desecration to the 19th century treatment of Native Americans. “If you’re in the United States,” the president said, “sometimes you can feel lazy and think we’re so big we don’t have to really know anything about other people.” The attack on supposedly insular Americans was somewhat bizarre, given that Obama himself knows no foreign languages. He often seems confused about even basic world geography. (His birthplace of Hawaii is not “Asia,” Austrians do not speak “Austrian,” and the Falkland Islands are not the Maldives). Obama’s sense of history is equally weak. Contrary to his past remarks, the Islamic world did not spark either the Western Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Cordoba was not, as he once suggested, an Islamic center of “tolerance” during the Spanish Inquisition; in fact, its Muslim population had been expelled during the early Reconquista over two centuries earlier. In another eerie ditto of his infamous 2008 attack on the supposedly intolerant Pennsylvania “clingers,” Obama returned to his theme that ignorant Americans “typically” become xenophobic and racist: “Typically, when people feel stressed, they turn on others who don’t look like them.” (“Typically” is not a good Obama word to use in the context of racial relations, since he once dubbed his own grandmother a “typical white person.”) Daniel Henninger has noted this sort of attack by Democratic pols on fellow citizen voters is typical of the political elites: Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are 'racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- a heck of a lot of phobia for anyone to lug around all day -- puts back in play what will be seen as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the politically incorrect. Responding for the rest of us deplorables, Dr. Ben Carson scored a rim shot at her slander: In a very telling moment, Hillary Clinton maligned me and millions of other Americans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic ‘deplorables.’ “I’m so tired of this line of attack that normally taunts conservatives. Well, let me be very specific in my response. I believe in expanding opportunity, not welfare; that’s not racist. “I believe every life is worth protecting, particularly the unborn; that doesn’t make me sexist. “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman; that’s not homophobic. “I believe in borders, the rule of law and our sovereign right to decide who to let into our country; that’s not xenophobic. “I believe radical Islam is a mortal threat to America and Western civilization; that is common sense, not Islamophobia.” He posted his remarks on Facebook -- a great way to get through the Maginot line that the media has to date constructed around Hillary. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/technology_breaches_the_media_maginot_line_.html#ixzz4KcwWp9U8 Oh..............and for lybob. The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015. During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment. Edited September 18, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 (edited) Oh..............and for lybob. The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015. During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment. In a radio interview Aug. 23, 2016, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus wrongly interpreted tax forms submitted by the Clinton Foundation to claim that the foundation spends the vast majority of its donations on overhead and not charitable work. Speaking on The Mike Gallagher Show, Priebus described the foundation as a way to make the Clintons rich and said he couldn’t find examples of charitable work that they do. "And so, these people ask the question in interviews, especially in the liberal media, you know, well ‘don’t you think they do great work?’ Well, I don’t know what great work they do," Priebus said. "I mean the fact is, is if they’ve got about 80 percent overhead and 20 percent of the money's actually getting into the place that it should, then it seems like the only work that the Clinton Foundation is doing is lining the pockets of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And that, to me, should be investigated …" The claim that 80 percent of the money the foundation raises goes to overhead -- a term used to described expenses that go to management and fundraising costs -- is something that has been made by Carly Fiorina and Rush Limbaugh in varying forms. But, despite what Priebus says, it’s an incorrect reading of tax forms submitted by the foundation, experts who monitor and study charitable organizations say. We did not hear back from RNC spokesman Sean Spicer. A wrong reading Priebus’ case is built on the notion that the only charitable work the Clinton Foundation does is in grant-making and, by extension, everything else is overhead. We’ll use the Clinton Foundation’s most recent IRS tax form, for 2014, as an example. (It starts on Page 28 of this document.) The foundation reported total expenses in 2014 of a little over $91 million but grants of just $5.1 million. That’s close to 6 percent of the foundation’s money being spent on grants. Over a five-year period from 2009-12, the foundation raised over $500 million, the conservative website The Federalist reported, but only 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went toward grants. But that doesn’t mean everything else is overhead, people who monitor charities and their practices say. "Although it has ‘foundation’ in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity," Brian Mittendorf, a professor of accounting at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. "In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment. "Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/ Edited September 18, 2016 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 She looks like death warmed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 She looks like death warmed over. God, I hope she doesn't die. I don't think I could stand to hear how the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy killed her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts