“Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.” - Julian Assange

Clinton & ISIS funded by same money

https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-p...i-clinton/

If you voted for Bernie and now vote for HRC you are mentally challenged?

Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

(11-05-2016 09:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

(11-05-2016 09:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

Based on IRS 2014 filings, the CF spent 5.7% of it's budget on charitable grants.

"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.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5...z4P9IwqoXl

What scares me most is how uninformed or evil so many of my fellow citizens are that support HRC.

(11-05-2016 11:41 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  What scares me most is how uninformed, blinded by ideology or evil so many of my fellow citizens are that support HRC.

FIFY

(11-05-2016 10:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 09:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

Based on IRS 2014 filings, the CF spent 5.7% of it's budget on charitable grants.

"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.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5...z4P9IwqoXl

no

86.9% is spent on programs and it has a 4 out of 4 rating.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680

(11-05-2016 12:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 10:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 09:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

Based on IRS 2014 filings, the CF spent 5.7% of it's budget on charitable grants.

"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.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5...z4P9IwqoXl

no

86.9% is spent on programs and it has a 4 out of 4 rating.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680

In 2015 NY Post disagrees…
and includes info from Charity Navigator…

"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."

And this…
"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."

Maybe the CFF has cleaned up its act or its record-keeping since 2015.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-wat...lush-fund/

Based on Wikileaks, even Chelsea Clinton has been worried about monkey business at CFF.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikile...le/2605379

Speaking of Bernie...

I think we know now why Bernie played nice with Hillary and didn't want to get into the email scandal. The HRC campaign mustve had something on him.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794756750926876672

(11-05-2016 12:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 12:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 10:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 09:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

Based on IRS 2014 filings, the CF spent 5.7% of it's budget on charitable grants.

"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.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5...z4P9IwqoXl

no

86.9% is spent on programs and it has a 4 out of 4 rating.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680

In 2015 NY Post disagrees…
and includes info from Charity Navigator…

"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."

And this…
"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."

Maybe the CFF has cleaned up its act or its record-keeping since 2015.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-wat...lush-fund/

Based on Wikileaks, even Chelsea Clinton has been worried about monkey business at CFF.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikile...le/2605379

Charity watch gives it an A rating.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and...dation/478

(11-05-2016 01:14 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 12:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 12:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 10:37 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 09:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Lesser of two evils. It sucks that we're here but no use crying about it.

And a little dishonest to suggest "Clinton and ISIS funded by same money." Saudi Arabia has long funded Sunni terrorism but they're a longtime ally in the greater fight for regional stability. Again, pragmatism and lesser of two evils. Plus the money goes to the Clinton Foundation-- again, a charity-- not just in her pocket.

Based on IRS 2014 filings, the CF spent 5.7% of it's budget on charitable grants.

"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.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/just-5...z4P9IwqoXl

no

86.9% is spent on programs and it has a 4 out of 4 rating.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680

In 2015 NY Post disagrees…
and includes info from Charity Navigator…

"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."

And this…
"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."

Maybe the CFF has cleaned up its act or its record-keeping since 2015.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-wat...lush-fund/

Based on Wikileaks, even Chelsea Clinton has been worried about monkey business at CFF.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikile...le/2605379

Charity watch gives it an A rating.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and...dation/478

I dont need charity watch when I can see for myself how much they gave to charity. It was a dribble. They spent more on plane trips for Bill and Hillary than they did on "charities".

(11-05-2016 11:41 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  What scares me most is how uninformed or evil so many of my fellow citizens are that support HRC.

It doesn't surprise me at all. The way the MSM protects and is in her pocket it's not hard to realize why the stupid people out there don't know jack about what really goes on in the DNC.

For instance, any normal person of whatever political persuasion doesn't have the time (like we do) in researching all the crap about this election. They just read the Demon-cratic talking points and we know in whose pocket they're in. We have our newspaper which is a Gannett publication. Where is their investment? Trump? No way. Killary? You know it.

Not only that even our local tv news outlets are wanting Killary to win so what do we hear? Only those things that won't get the Killary campaign in hot water. We are dealing with an actual sinister, evil, corrupt system. The pen is mightier than the sword has never been truer.

What's surprising is that like she screamed one time, "why aren't I fifty points ahead?" She said that because in spite of her having all outlets creaming their pants for her she might still lose. Perhaps EVIL is showing and people are seeing it and going against her. What else can be the answer?

Some aren't. Some are going to just sit home this election. There are some that believe you have to vote someone from one of the two major parties. Just like most republicans, those Bernie voters believe that a vote for the other party is NEVER an option. That's especially true for the paradigm we're in in 2016.

I will say that Republicans who support Trump have as many legs to stand on as a snake when claiming superiority. You're just as bad. Ideologically blinded enough to accept Trump after he insulted you. What was his statement? "I could shoot someone somewhere and won't lose a single vote." He's quite literally telling you that you won't drop your support no matter how evil he is or what he'd do. Short of pedophilia (I'm not even sure about this), he won't lose a single voter.

(11-05-2016 03:26 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Some aren't. Some are going to just sit home this election. There are some that believe you have to vote someone from one of the two major parties. Just like most republicans, those Bernie voters believe that a vote for the other party is NEVER an option. That's especially true for the paradigm we're in in 2016.

I will say that Republicans who support Trump have as many legs to stand on as a snake when claiming superiority. You're just as bad. Ideologically blinded enough to accept Trump after he insulted you. What was his statement? "I could shoot someone somewhere and won't lose a single vote." He's quite literally telling you that you won't drop your support no matter how evil he is or what he'd do. Short of pedophilia (I'm not even sure about this), he won't lose a single voter.

That's because he knows that the other side is worlds apart as far as ideology. I'm pro-gun rights, is Killary? I'm pro-conservative SC Justice, is Killary? I'm anti-abortion, is Killary? I know Trump has a dirty mouth, Killary does too. I know Killary is corrupt, I know Trump does his dealings by the law. ETC. ETC.Who else should I vote for? Those two other wing nuts in the Green Party or the Pot head?

(11-05-2016 03:40 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(11-05-2016 03:26 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Some aren't. Some are going to just sit home this election. There are some that believe you have to vote someone from one of the two major parties. Just like most republicans, those Bernie voters believe that a vote for the other party is NEVER an option. That's especially true for the paradigm we're in in 2016.

I will say that Republicans who support Trump have as many legs to stand on as a snake when claiming superiority. You're just as bad. Ideologically blinded enough to accept Trump after he insulted you. What was his statement? "I could shoot someone somewhere and won't lose a single vote." He's quite literally telling you that you won't drop your support no matter how evil he is or what he'd do. Short of pedophilia (I'm not even sure about this), he won't lose a single voter.

That's because he knows that the other side is worlds apart as far as ideology. I'm pro-gun rights, is Killary? I'm pro-conservative SC Justice, is Killary? I'm anti-abortion, is Killary? I know Trump has a dirty mouth, Killary does too. I know Killary is corrupt, I know Trump does his dealings by the law. ETC. ETC.Who else should I vote for? Those two other wing nuts in the Green Party or the Pot head?

See. That puts you on the same coin as the Dems. They have the same motivations as you, just a different side of the same coin.

This makes you a concerned American, who feels that the other person would be harmful if elected; just like the other side. Not superior or inferior, not any more or less evil, just concerned.

Yes of course. It's an ideological issue for both camps. I don't agree with their morality and they don't agree with mine. Theirs is everything goes (the old, if it feels good do it) mine has consequences for unmoral lifestyles. The Demon-cratic party is employing that "anything goes mentality" in order to win.

(11-05-2016 04:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Yes of course. It's an ideological issue for both camps. I don't agree with their morality and they don't agree with mine. Theirs is everything goes (the old, if it feels good do it) mine has consequences for unmoral lifestyles. The Demon-cratic party is employing that "anything goes mentality" in order to win.

What would be the consequences for Trump's immoral lifestyle? Election to the highest office in the land? That's inconsistent, IMO. Trump literally lives and immoral lifestyle by his own admission. He IS anything goes. Grab em by the *****. Walk in on girls as young as 15 with no clothes on. If it feels good, he'll do it.

Trump blew up the republican and democratic establishment. Wake up Bernie voters. Trump is the outsider that will make the changes you're looking for. Hillary is the old establishment. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselve"

Bernie Sanders supporters do whatever the Comrade tells them to. No free will or independent thoughts. They hated Hillary but once their false god sold out to her, they are on her side.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH why aren't Bernie and his supporters falling for our cynical divide and conquer strategy????

Hillary adopted 2/3 of Bernie's platform. If Dems retake the Senate, Bernie becomes chairman of the Budget Committee. A socialist. Ha! And you want us to back Drumpf???