Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

Right on! We'll call it a "half-truth". I think that's her specialty, no?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ns-show-incom/

So trump's embattled campaign manager who has all sorts of dirty money pouring out of him is the source for these allegations? Really?

We laugh at you. Do better.

[Unregistered]

Let's see ......

A philanthropic organization associated with one candidate, one with disclosures far beyond what is required by law, accepts money as money but we certainly see it used for no objectionable positive ends. Why shouldn't we see $$$ used for good so long as it doesn't buy anything. Regardless the candidate does not personally profit and again look at the filings ...you can make these arguments of yours BECAUSE its transparent


Vs

Trump hiding all evidence of extent of suspect foreign agencies invested in his PERSONAL business empire. That's all even before we bring manafort into equation.

Just another false equivalency. That's why you are getting crushed and will see it get worse. All but the trump nutters see the difference ....may not love Hillary but give country to nut? Trump is a bridge too far for sane Americans who recognize HRC basic competence to govern relative to others who have successfully done so.

I think you mean a slush fund not a philanthropic organization:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

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

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

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.

[Unregistered]

Sure. Let's look at here and now like the three instances of discriminatory voter laws passed by red state legislatures have been thrown out of court as unconstitutional. In once case the court found evidence showing racist intent, I think in NC (they cover themselves in glory there ....good state for ex lax to relocate to but ....oh it's turning blue too).

See that? Shows how there has never been a break in aggressive racism. Racists keep working it. Took long time to get beyond voting rights act and racist southern state legislatures tooling back to work.

so here and now time to end the racism first order of business votes don't have colors to them

Right on! Let's look at three instances of conservative speeches, comments, and posts being cancelled by blue college administrators as they were deemed "offensive" and "insensitive".

See that? Shows how there has never been a break in aggressive racism. Racists keep working at it.

So, here and now time to end the racism (and censure) first order of business, PEOPLE (not VOTES) don't have colors to them.

[Unregistered]

So trump's embattled campaign manager who has all sorts of dirty money pouring out of him is the source for these allegations? Really?

We laugh at you. Do better.

Right on! He was only HALF-RIGHT!!

[Unregistered]

I think you mean a slush fund not a philanthropic organization:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

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

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

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.

Can I get an Amen from the back!?!?! Takes a lot of traveling around the world in private jets to show concern about the environment ya' know.

[Unregistered]

I think you mean a slush fund not a philanthropic organization:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

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

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

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.

Another debunked conservative trope that is years old.

Here is an independent analysis anyone interested can pursue granular info in tabs . Only 12% to overhead is excellent. Look at projects of course nutters hate foundation.

When trumps interests are as transparent and as available for inspection get back to me. Until then talk to the hand

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

[Unregistered]

I think you mean a slush fund not a philanthropic organization:
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

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

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

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel.

More lies and misinformation from the Right, as usual...

http://i63.tinypic.com/2lm1j81.jpg

[Unregistered]

I don't think you are comparing apples-to-apples. One is quoting 2013 stats, the others appear to be much more recent.

They WERE on the watch list, but from what I can see, have been removed within the last few months.

[Unregistered]

Can I get an Amen from the back!?!?! Takes a lot of traveling around the world in private jets to show concern about the environment ya' know.

Here is a link to a form 1090 filing from Clinton foundation showing granular breakdown of travel expenses and its of course nothing like the nutters imply. Since it's a PUBLIC charity all the stuff the nutters allege can be bounced by all those who aren't be breathlessly hysterical.


http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...0b0083da-9.pdf

Dear nutters please link similar from trump foundation oh what's that he doesn't make it available? Is that because it's a private foundation? The kind that actually lends itself to the minds of things you allege for Clinton foundation?

Again other dear readers please look into it yourself and you will see I am correct.

[Unregistered]

I don't think you are comparing apples-to-apples. One is quoting 2013 stats, the others appear to be much more recent.

They WERE on the watch list, but from what I can see, have been removed within the last few months.

The 2013 analysis was debunked because they didn't include the bulk of charitable work that was done directly. Only counted minor amount they funded THROUGH donations foundation made that passed through ultimate delivery organization. Direct charity always more efficient.

But what do you expect from NY POst? That they would analyze anything non-trivial correctly?

[Unregistered]

I don't think you are comparing apples-to-apples. One is quoting 2013 stats, the others appear to be much more recent.

They WERE on the watch list, but from what I can see, have been removed within the last few months.

Hey Dopey, go to factcheck.org to understand what being placed on the watchlist actually meant.
You guys will swallow anything you're fed.

[Unregistered]

More lies and misinformation from the Right, as usual...

http://i63.tinypic.com/2lm1j81.jpg

Of course I don't thNk venerables like Red Cross are nearly as efficient. Susan g komen favorite of right certainly isn't


This is why they reject reason. They would be extinct if everyone didn't

[Unregistered]

Here is a link to a form 1090 filing from Clinton foundation showing granular breakdown of travel expenses and its of course nothing like the nutters imply. Since it's a PUBLIC charity all the stuff the nutters allege can be bounced by all those who aren't be breathlessly hysterical.


http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...0b0083da-9.pdf

Dear nutters please link similar from trump foundation oh what's that he doesn't make it available? Is that because it's a private foundation? The kind that actually lends itself to the minds of things you allege for Clinton foundation?

Again other dear readers please look into it yourself and you will see I am correct.

Hmmm, will take some time to sort through. First, glance, I see the $8.5 million travel expenses confirmed on here. Also the compensation looks accurate, and the office expenses look inflated.

$80million in expenses, I think I see?

Can't see on this if it verifies the little amount of direct aid or not.

[Unregistered]

The 2013 analysis was debunked because they didn't include the bulk of charitable work that was done directly. Only counted minor amount they funded THROUGH donations foundation made that passed through ultimate delivery organization. Direct charity always more efficient.

But what do you expect from NY POst? That they would analyze anything non-trivial correctly?

Thanks. I was just noting the numbers didn't match since it appeared different fiscal years were being discussed.

[Unregistered]

Hey Dopey, go to factcheck.org to understand what being placed on the watchlist actually meant.
You guys will swallow anything you're fed.

Who are "you guys"? Why the name-calling?

Just mentioning that someone mentioned they were on the watch list, and I said that they were, but are no longer.

Did your mother teach you to resort to name-calling when someone tries to help?