|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia..... "This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.” ...... Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause...... In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala. |
Quote:
In comment 12306652 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 12306596 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Their lifetime achievement award?
Quote:
The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds
No, the charity raised less at that event than at prior events.
So how does that change the fact that he raised 1.5M for them? Holy shit, WTF does it have to do with any other event they have had? He generated 1.5M for them in this one, right or wrong?
It shows that the charity was more than capable of raising that amount of cash on their own and calls into question whether or not they would've been better off without inviting him. When you bring in someone like Clinton, you typically expect to see a significant increase in the amount raised.
And it's highly unlikely this gala wouldn't have raised at least half the $2M on their own, so you have to have your head pretty far up the Clinton's asses to attribute all $1.5M to them.
Horseshit...It does not show that at all. there could be a ton of mitigating factors that came into play we don't know.
The bottom line here is that its a fact 2M was netted for charities and your trying to somehow find something wrong with that.
Are you saying charging speaking fees that clients are willing to pay indicates a lack of integrity?
Quote:
In comment 12306654 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
And the reasoning has to be better than "they were graced with the awesome presence of Bill Clinton"
They made 1.5M in one night. Is that considered a loss?
If the total proceeds from the event sans Clinton would've exceeded $1.5M, than yes, it's a loss. And considering they had prior events surpass that mark, it's reasonable to think they could've raised a comparable amount for the Happy Hearts charity without Bill.
They NETTED 2M total...How on Earth does that equate to a loss? Its still a profit no matter how you much you want to use a bunch of BS to claim otherwise
Quote:
As does integrity. The Clintons have not impressed me with the integrity part
Are you saying charging speaking fees that clients are willing to pay indicates a lack of integrity?
Actually he charged a donation to a different charity. So bottom line here is that all monies went to charitable events which is really the goal when it all is boiled down.
From $50 to $500,000 is significant inflation, no?
Unbelievably so
Link - ( New Window )
You have to add the "Gate" also to really amp it up. "Bilgazigate"
Out of curiosity, when did we ever stop helping the Saudi's militarily?
70-80's we sold them over 100 Billion in military stuff, plus help train them
90's we sent troops to protect the Saudi border during the Gulf War as well as form an alliance with them.
We have had 10K troops stationed there since 2003
So while he may have increased the participation in the event, how about not demanding a huge fee to do so? Or donate it back to the charity.
She booked Cipriani 42nd Street, which greeted guests with Bellini cocktails on silver trays. She flew in Sheryl Crow with her band and crew for a 20-minute set. She special-ordered heart-shaped floral centerpieces, heart-shaped chocolate parfaits, heart-shaped tiramisù and, because orange is the charity’s color, an orange carpet rather than a red one. She imported a Swiss auctioneer and handed out orange rulers to serve as auction paddles, playfully threatening to use hers to spank the highest bidder for an Ibiza vacation.
These people decided to go all out and blow $363k on costs. Fucking disgusting waste of money. The 500k rerouted to the Clinton charity was probably the money best spent.
I suspect they started to draw heat because $863k of $2 million did not go to their charity. And so instead of taking the heat for their gala 10th anniversary with grossly wasteful costs, they pointed the middle finger at Bill Clinton. Who didnt make a fucking dollar off of the event. Maybe people who run charities shouldnt "pull out all the stops" in throwing a party like they had Tyco shareholders money to burn.
But of course, the Clintons are evil (TM).
So while he may have increased the participation in the event, how about not demanding a huge fee to do so? Or donate it back to the charity.
The issue as you see it is based on made up facts in your ridiculous fantasy land.
How are they greedy if all the money went to charities? I would love an explanation for that claim based on what happened here.
Don't get shitty because i pointed out the fact that we have been doing business with them for over 40 years militarily, something i think you should have known
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
Quote:
I am surprised that most posters are sympathetic to the Clintons.The article highlights something that is clear from everything they do.They are greedy.Not satisfied with the lifestyle of people like myself who they would say does not pay their fair share,and under any circumstance always putting their own interests and getting as much as they can for themselves before the needs of anyone else.
How are they greedy if all the money went to charities? I would love an explanation for that claim based on what happened here.
LOL, don't you read at all? Only 10% of the money the Clinton's raise goes to actual charity. The rest is eaten up by travel and other expenses.
They did not cut the check to him, they paid his charity. Don't understand how that is missed repeatedly in this thread
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
In comment 12306712 Hilary said:
Quote:
I am surprised that most posters are sympathetic to the Clintons.The article highlights something that is clear from everything they do.They are greedy.Not satisfied with the lifestyle of people like myself who they would say does not pay their fair share,and under any circumstance always putting their own interests and getting as much as they can for themselves before the needs of anyone else.
How are they greedy if all the money went to charities? I would love an explanation for that claim based on what happened here.
LOL, don't you read at all? Only 10% of the money the Clinton's raise goes to actual charity. The rest is eaten up by travel and other expenses.
No i don't I need you to supply a link showing this okay?
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
(And I think it's a good read whether you want a complete carte Blanche for anything Democrat or you want to add -gate to everything
Quote:
In comment 12306725 Bill L said:
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
(And I think it's a good read whether you want a complete carte Blanche for anything Democrat or you want to add -gate to everything
. But aren't those the two sides here (and the other thread the other night)? I'm pretty sure I saw a couple posts here meant to mock or deflect critique with "Benghazi-gate)
Well then don't sit there and claim "Golly gee i was only asking a question" when you get it shot back at you a bit.
Bill L, you wanting to claim the two sided issue, yet i only see you take one side and its the same one every time. If your going to ask that of someone then don't you think it should apply to yourself as well?
There will be when they refile the financials showing the foreign money. that will also change the %'s of what was spent on charitable grants to the better.
Yes. Like the Saudis, who we've never been in bed with. Or a bunch of other Arab countries who we want to fight against extremism in the middle east (instead of our own sons and daughters).
I urge you to really dig into the countries. Western Europe, Canada and Austrilia are 8. 12 left. Who are we complaining about? The Saudis? We've been arming them forever, sadly. Kuwait is a big ally. That's like $45-50 million off the list; most of the money. Taiwan always has our support. Jamaica ($50k) seem like a good group of guys (fast as shit). Dont know the deal with Thailand.
I honestly dont know a ton about our national interest and histories of selling arms to the remainder. Were we trying to get countries in the middle east involved in all the shit there (Iraq, beginning of ISIS, AQAP etc)? single year over year comp seems like it could be misleading. But importantly the donations seem small by comparison. $50k from Baharain seems immaterial even if you think the worst of the Clintons. Other than Morocco, which gave $2 million and saw a whopping 1% increase in purchases, the other donations are all $1 million or less.
And of course we have no idea what role Clinton played in these approvals. I mean, if memos were coming up saying "dont sell X to country Y" and Sec. Clinton overrode that, it's relevant. But if the normal bureaucracy approved these sales and Clinton was uninvolved or rubber stamped it, I think you'd agree that it isnt relevant. And of course if she shut this all down we'd hear about Left Hillary destroying good American defense contracting jobs.
Quote:
In comment 12306728 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306725 Bill L said:
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
(And I think it's a good read whether you want a complete carte Blanche for anything Democrat or you want to add -gate to everything
. But aren't those the two sides here (and the other thread the other night)? I'm pretty sure I saw a couple posts here meant to mock or deflect critique with "Benghazi-gate)
Well then don't sit there and claim "Golly gee i was only asking a question" when you get it shot back at you a bit.
Bill L, you wanting to claim the two sided issue, yet i only see you take one side and its the same one every time. If your going to ask that of someone then don't you think it should apply to yourself as well?
It is a two-sided issue...otherwise you wouldn't have an argument here. And obviously I'm going to take the same side on it every time.
Quote:
I think the more troubling news is the story in IBT yesterday that there was a direct relationship and huge jump in the amount of weapons sales to about 20 countries that ponied up big donations to the Clinton Foundation. These were a result of State Dept approval while Clinton was Secretary.
Yes. Like the Saudis, who we've never been in bed with. Or a bunch of other Arab countries who we want to fight against extremism in the middle east (instead of our own sons and daughters).
I urge you to really dig into the countries. Western Europe, Canada and Austrilia are 8. 12 left. Who are we complaining about? The Saudis? We've been arming them forever, sadly. Kuwait is a big ally. That's like $45-50 million off the list; most of the money. Taiwan always has our support. Jamaica ($50k) seem like a good group of guys (fast as shit). Dont know the deal with Thailand.
I honestly dont know a ton about our national interest and histories of selling arms to the remainder. Were we trying to get countries in the middle east involved in all the shit there (Iraq, beginning of ISIS, AQAP etc)? single year over year comp seems like it could be misleading. But importantly the donations seem small by comparison. $50k from Baharain seems immaterial even if you think the worst of the Clintons. Other than Morocco, which gave $2 million and saw a whopping 1% increase in purchases, the other donations are all $1 million or less.
And of course we have no idea what role Clinton played in these approvals. I mean, if memos were coming up saying "dont sell X to country Y" and Sec. Clinton overrode that, it's relevant. But if the normal bureaucracy approved these sales and Clinton was uninvolved or rubber stamped it, I think you'd agree that it isnt relevant. And of course if she shut this all down we'd hear about Left Hillary destroying good American defense contracting jobs.
Maybe all true. But wouldn't you agree that when everyone, republican and democrat and Obama said that the foundation should not accept foreign donations while she was at State (and now that she's running) that they should have follow d that "advice"?
Anyway, if it's no problem to you, then it's no problem. I'm not trying to change your mind. It's troubling to me but I'm also okay if it's only troubling to me.
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
But yeah, it's just like giving to Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Link - ( New Window )
But yeah, it's just like giving to Medecins Sans Frontieres. Link - ( New Window )
Way to move the target. You've not yet explained how what happened in the article you've linked qualifies as a shake down.
What is the source for that?
Quote:
In comment 12306732 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12306728 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306725 Bill L said:
Quote:
As to why this might raise eyebrows,
Geez i don't know why
Quote:
It is a two-sided issue...otherwise you wouldn't have an argument here. And obviously I'm going to take the same side on it every time.
And you know what that is fine, but don't sit here with the "Aw shucks i was just asking a question" when you were doing more then that.
Quote:
What is the source for that?
Jonah Goldberg of National Review.
Quote:
What is the source for that?
LOL...its from Jonah Goldberg at the National Review. He is still mad because his mom never could sell her "Clinton's murdered Vince Foster" theory to anything more then extremist's
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
I'm not crazy about her, but listening to the likes of buford, I'm rooting for her like hell. If they hate her so much, she must really scare them. And she should. Clintons have continually owned the GOP for two decades.
Quote:
In comment 12306745 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is the source for that?
LOL...its from Jonah Goldberg at the National Review. He is still mad because his mom never could sell her "Clinton's murdered Vince Foster" theory to anything more then extremist's
It is tongue in cheek. A little too close to home for some people though, apparently. This notion that it's all just some big conspiracy, that everyone is out to get the Clinton's, is the best sales job the two of them and their acolytes have ever pulled off. They're shady as fuck. This story is shady as fuck. Not criminal, but the sort of petty bullshit that even some of the lesser evil folks have come to expect of the Clintons. And yet since we lack the aforementioned Dave Chappell standard of proof of anything criminal, we're left with Thriller.
From $50 to $500,000 is significant inflation, no?
Raising $2000000 for charity. The nerve on 'em.
Quote:
In comment 12306721 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 12306716 buford said:
Quote:
their 'charity'.
Can you supply some proof of this? some actual examples?
The same donors to the charity also pay huge sums for the Clinton's to speak. Ironically, Bill's speaking fees skyrocketed when Hilary was SOS. And as I said, the foundation pays their staff that they also use for political purposes and they get to travel in style. One charity watchdog group called the Clinton Foundation 'a slush fund'.
Great, can you actually show the quotes and the proof that they are abusing the foundations money? Its easy to keep saying it, but it really would go far in backing your claims if you actually showed some kind of evidence of this? That is unless your just running with unproven accusations and innuendo
Ahem
Link - ( New Window )