[BryantD]

There's a slight inaccuracy here; by simply saying "donated to Clinton" you imply that the donation was to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The donation was, however, to the Clinton Foundation.

Given that the donations to the Clinton Foundation also came from conservative media outlets such as Newsmax and Fox, I'm confident that donating to the Clinton Foundation does not prove bias towards Hillary Clinton.

[contergan]

The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative are just two fronts the Clintons used over the years to receive bribes.

How else do you explain this:

http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-dow...

As soon as Clinton was out of the race, all those donations suddenly stopped coming in. It's pretty obvious that the whole thing was pretty much just legal bribery und the disguise of altruism.

Since the Global Initiative has already shut down, it's probably only a matter of time until the Foundation shuts down, too.

[dragonwriter]

The diametrically opposed interpretation that donors were afraid of retaliation by the Trump administration is frequently offered; and there are a lot of subtle shadings in between that one might also reasonably believe -- e.g., donors perceived the power of the Clinton brand as a key advantage of that organization over others, but the election defeat tarnished the brand and eliminated the advantage.

[mundo]

Giving money to a politician's pet charity for the opportunity to have lunch with (and presumably lobby) that politician is not bribery. It's not even dishonest.

If it seems like it is, remember that giving money directly to the politician's campaign for the opportunity to have lunch with them is both legal and commonplace.

[mjmsmith]

By all means, let's keep focusing on the Clintons. That's obviously the important thing here.

[gravypod]

It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received? With far less money many more organization have done much more charitable work. One such example is the NAACP. They've received ~16mill which is a stark contrast between the Clinton Foundation who has received in the ballpark of 500mill from 09 to 12.

Not only is the NAACP a charity that received funding that had a huge impact but also many many more. To name one I'd pick the National Parks fund.

There is also the Red Cross who has received writing 600mill but again has done so much more right it to the point where its name is ubiquitous in the field of aid.

[BryantD]

Um, sure. The 2015 annual report is here: http://2015.clintonfoundation.org/

[justinlaster]

You're concern trolling. The information is readily out there.

Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous?

The Clinton Foundation website has a litany of literature on its efforts around the world. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation on overall 94.74/100 score [0].

In short, kindly fuck off out of here with what is either out right lies or willful ignorance.

[0]: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...

[gravypod]

"Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous?"

You're misunderstanding my point. If the money is going into the Clinton Foundation and what's coming out isn't on par with what other organizations are doing with their funds then something is fishy. I don't see how that observation could fly over you head so let's go over it.

I said "It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received?"

I am directly asking the question: how does the money Clinton's Foundation Inputs and Outputs compare to the Inputs and Outputs of other organizations. The NAACP and American Red Cross are two of the most ubiquitous charity and social benifit organizations out there. I'm drawing attention to the fact that they recive similar amounts of money and yet produce faaar more output then the Clinton Foundation and that's with the Red Cross being corrupt as hell.

"The Clinton Foundation website has a litany of literature on its efforts around the world. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation on overall 94.74/100 score."

What list of engagements and activities have they done. All I can find is the "Annual Report 2015 [0]" from the other responce. This shows off a few things...

   * We helped 31,000 U.S. schools get healthier.

I literally have no idea what they did. They just talk about some person and how people have access to healthcare to prevent obesity. Lets just assume they made some push to hire this person who advocated for this and lets say they got ~2 million to push this stuff through.

   * We reached 105,000 farmers in East Africa.

"The Trees of Hope Project in Malawi sold more than 40,000 carbon certificates in 2015, which are providing approximately $150,000 in payments directly to smallholder farmers who are supporting land restoration efforts, diversifying traditional sources of income."

This is more of an advertising heavy goal. Lets call this 1 million since it involves marketing which is the Clinton Foundations's (and any charity or political groups) strong suit.

   * Our social enterprises have benefited 450,000 people.

They lend people help to develop personal buisness seems like. Lets call that 5 million since it involves physical labor and experts in the field.

   * We digitized 1.8 million climate records in Kenya.

1 million in schollarships were donated to PhDs and also 2million in physical action (planting seeds).

   * We launched new efforts to improve literacy in Haiti.

"The Clinton Foundation has committed more than $30 million to support relief efforts and long-term development in Haiti. "

and

" The Clinton Foundation has helped to facilitate more than $120 million in foreign direct investment into Haiti and provides capacity building assistance and access to markets for Haitian businesses and entrepreneurs."

So that's ~30 mill + 1 million for a fund raiser. They also paid for financial education of 1000 women so lets call that 10 million.

   * The CGI community responded to earthquakes in Nepal.

This seems to have been done by an external group but it seems like the Clinton Foundation basically was a bank + gave them a water filter. The foundation says it "improved access to financial services or capital" so I assume that's either an internet thing to reach a bank or either them providing banking. The water filtration system actually pretty good, I can't rag on that.

Lets call it 500k for a water filtration system and 10mill for the Fin-access.

   * We partnered to reduce deaths from prescription drug abuse.

"In 2014, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI) convened key stakeholders from government, industry, and community groups to identify opportunities to expand access to naloxone – an emergency treatment that can reverse the effects of prescription painkiller and other opioid overdoses. As a result, in 2015, CHMI launched a national strategic partnership with kaléo, a privately-held pharmaceutical company which has developed an innovative naloxone injector. In partnership with CHMI, kaléo will make the naloxone device, featuring easy-to-use visual and voice instructions, available at a discount to colleges and universities, public safety organizations, and community organizations."

So basically they lobbied to get the government to buy a large ammount of anti-OD nasil spray devices. Let's call this Hillary's job as a congresswoman so it should be covered by her salary.

   * We gave students a reason to bet on the future.

It's a propeganda building about Bill called the "Clinton Presidential Center". Lets call this 10 million since it's actually a physical building with priests... I mean educators.. inside.

   * We led the CHARGE for girls' education.

They're doing some kind of really vauge and scary data collection thing... or something? The page wasn't clear and the video was even stranger. Let's just call this 2 million because fuck it.

   * We invested in our youngest generation.

They sponsored a few TV episodes (~8) and printed out coloring panflets for laundromats. This could be around 200k for the design, ~250k/episode, and maybe 500k for distrobution. That's about 2.7 million.

   * We mobilized 4,050 hours of service.

So they ran a few letter writing, calling, and advocacy campaigns. Ok... but how much could that possibly take? No more then 1 million. If you take 500 people and make them work for ~8 hours you get to the ~4k hours figure. That's what I'd expect 1 million to buy you if you pissed it away.

Now when we bring all the numbers down it looks a little something like this:

2.7+2+10+10.5+41+3+5+1+2 = 77.2 million by my guesstimates (I totalled it up for you just in case you were too blinded by your aligance to a populairty contest).

Now sure.. lets say I was stupid and my numbers are bad so lets double it!

77.2 * 2 = 154.4 million

Ok... there's still a big gap here... lets add 40% for management overhead.

154.4 * 1.4 = 216.16 million

Ok.... I don't know what's going on here.... Hillary and Bill said they're fighting for the people but it seems to me that they're just rich people trying to exploit all of us and are in it for themselves...

No.. that can't be it....

In short, I should kindly fuck off out of here with what is either out right lies or willful ignorance.

But seriously, I don't think the figures I quoted were in the incorrect magnitutde for the funding of these programs. Do you? Could you please who the results of these ogranizations? Like tangable results? I mean I can do that for the NAACP LDF (http://www.naacpldf.org/events) and the Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/latest-news) but I can't do that for the clinton foundation.

[0] - http://2015.clintonfoundation.org/#!/

[justinlaster]

It didn't go over my head. You're just deluding yourself.

>I'm drawing attention to the fact that they recive similar amounts of money and yet produce faaar more output then the Clinton Foundation and that's with the Red Cross being corrupt as hell.

Except they do not; at the very least you do not have any substantive evidence to back up that claim. Notice you could not source any of your examples, because they're not based on anything. They're just hypothetical scenarios with extremely arbitrary numbers and extremely contrived scenarios.

How come you did not source any examples from your other chosen charities to state they're actually "outputing" far more dollar for dollar? You were only extremely liberal with one -- going so far as to make up examples for it (despite most likely not having experience any relevant field for each charitable service). Why is that?

You claim the links you provided somehow qualify as "tangable" results, used as evidence for your overall point. Yet you chose to not link the equivalent pages from the clinton foundation website. Why is that?

Stop using conspiracy theories as facts.