quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Given that the "clinton cash" expose flopped like a bunch of floppy things flopping sadly, I would say its a bogus question, but for the record, no I dont think its a charity.....
But the right wont be happy until they know what colour jockstrap the janitor wears in the damn headquarters.
the irony is increasingly amusing

Why? Because they want to know how much of the Clinton's foundation..if it is a charity...actually gives to charity.
Sites like Charity Navigator are very helpful in showing you what percentage of your giving goes to support the mission of the nonprofit, as opposed to administrative expenses. Some nonprofits may have quite a bit of overhead, but according to the charity ratings site, if they are spending more than 33.3% of their total budget on overhead, the organization is simply not meeting its mission.

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

That would mean the Clinton Foundation is not meeting their mission as only 10% went towards charitable grants in 2013.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

Of course, there are other groups that dont do well on overhead either:

The following charities spend at least 30 cents or more for every donated dollar on things like overhead, administrative costs, and fundraising.

George Bush Presidential Library Foundation

Alzheimer's Foundation of America

The Cable Center

Jewish Guild for the Blind

American Printing House for the Blind

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

Of course that means they're still spending 60 - 70 percent...versus 10...on their cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/30/is-the-clinton-foundation-really-a-charity/

According to this article/author, is this a charity to you?

You want to cut down the Clintons? Fine, I'll cut down the Koch brother's 'charity and research groups'. Who do you think has more corruption and 'money laundering operations' in use right now?

A good source

I agree in the viewpoint that every organization, be it liberal, moderate, or conservative is properly investigated. That the information is known and the acounting of every dollar solid and verifiable. Right now, there are many more conservative groups that masquerade as something innocent and honest, when they are not. You agree that these too should all be properly investigated just like the Clinton Foundation? An those that are found guilty of lying to the public are dissolved and removed; possibly charging its owners for fraud if its really bad.

If they're claiming to be charities and giving only 10% to charitable causes, yes...they do.

With all the guidelines floating around it seems pretty easy to determine if it's a charity or not. As your post already showed But it is amusing to watch some of the posters getting so worked up because someone implied something bad about one of their own. I guess anything is ok as long as someone on the right did it too.

Usually pushed by people that leap at stuff due to LACK OF EVIDENCE. Like Benghazi? Or any of the other issues that have plagued the Clintons over the years. That if some issue were to come up, folks like you, leap at the chance to attack the Clinton. The evidence and facts be damn!

Haven't see a thread started by you stating your sorry for attacking the Clintons over Benghazi yet....

What is madding to conservatives and libertarians is they dont have one half decent candidate whom is a serious challenge to Hillary right now. All of them have bags of baggage. That they are joining the Clown Car should say to conservatives and libertarians that this new candidate is not a serious person for the job. They their problems are numerous and destructive. We already had one of them in the White House; his name was George W. Bush.

Hillary is the next President. You want a decent shot at the White House? Start planning for 2024......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Given that the "clinton cash" expose flopped like a bunch of floppy things flopping sadly, I would say its a bogus question, but for the record, no I dont think its a charity.....
But the right wont be happy until they know what colour jockstrap the janitor wears in the damn headquarters.
the irony is increasingly amusing

Why? Because they want to know how much of the Clinton's foundation..if it is a charity...actually gives to charity.
Sites like Charity Navigator are very helpful in showing you what percentage of your giving goes to support the mission of the nonprofit, as opposed to administrative expenses. Some nonprofits may have quite a bit of overhead, but according to the charity ratings site, if they are spending more than 33.3% of their total budget on overhead, the organization is simply not meeting its mission.

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

That would mean the Clinton Foundation is not meeting their mission as only 10% went towards charitable grants in 2013.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

Of course, there are other groups that dont do well on overhead either:

The following charities spend at least 30 cents or more for every donated dollar on things like overhead, administrative costs, and fundraising.

George Bush Presidential Library Foundation

Alzheimer's Foundation of America

The Cable Center

Jewish Guild for the Blind

American Printing House for the Blind

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/What_Percentage_of_Donations_Go_to_Charity

Of course that means they're still spending 60 - 70 percent...versus 10...on their cause.

What part of the bolded type did you NOT understand.
SO I wont respond to the rest of your post, because its irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Actually, Lucy...I wasn't responding to the part you bolded. Because with them only giving 10 cents per dollar to "charity/causes", its not much of a charity...or a foundation either.

I was responding to the part of your post about the right not being happy until we get down to the janitors' underwear. And you...unlike some on your side...are intelligent enough to know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

one of the major differences between conservatives and liberals that I see when it comes time to voting is, to conservatives, character matters. to liberals, it really doesn't.

ive said this before and its worth saying again; some people, maybe many people, would still vote for Hillary if she killed puppies and ate kittens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

This seems far more an emotional response to Projected character publically. Few if any professional or aspiring politicians survive even cursory examination of their past and consistency. Character is not your choice of positions and issues, it's how you treat people you don't have to be nice to in order to prosper, for one I look at hard. Racism, sexism, religious intolerance or rigid ideology, and propping up the existing economic hegemony doesn't fit well here. Most 'small government' seems to fall under one or more of these, no insult to those who don't really do the math on the required infra structure for a post-modern urban civilization over the edge of using up it's ecological base for consumerism and profit. Current Liberal candidates aren't significantly better, maybe somewhat more principled, less competent in actual systems management than proven business leaders, who are mostly fish out of water in public office.
A very interesting study showed as early as grade school natural leaders were the least concerned among all their peers with candid communication if they got the required cooperation with their agenda. They lie easier and better than 'followers', in short.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

I'm not a 'Liberal' (I despise Democrats, but at least they aren't Republicans) but the answer is obvious, who the opposition puts up against her. The general subculture of those trying to win Republican primaries is so distasteful to those they aren't toadying to or the depths each will drop to opposing other policies about destroys them to the majority of voters. The few attractive Republicans have so little chance in the primary system none are participating.

A really good thinker put out that he is Uncompromising in his support of Compromise. He sees that the only hope of successfully governing multi-cultural societies and urban civilization is for all parties to talk with each other and all accept reasonable compromises in goals and methods so SOME sort of solutions and remedies can be implemented to address the growing and probably fatal local and global challenges urban Homo Sapiens now face.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

This seems far more an emotional response to Projected character publically. Few if any professional or aspiring politicians survive even cursory examination of their past and consistency. Character is not your choice of positions and issues, it's how you treat people you don't have to be nice to in order to prosper, for one I look at hard. Racism, sexism, religious intolerance or rigid ideology, and propping up the existing economic hegemony doesn't fit well here. Most 'small government' seems to fall under one or more of these, no insult to those who don't really do the math on the required infra structure for a post-modern urban civilization over the edge of using up it's ecological base for consumerism and profit. Current Liberal candidates aren't significantly better, maybe somewhat more principled, less competent in actual systems management than proven business leaders, who are mostly fish out of water in public office.
A very interesting study showed as early as grade school natural leaders were the least concerned among all their peers with candid communication if they got the required cooperation with their agenda. They lie easier and better than 'followers', in short.

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
...The few attractive Republicans have so little chance in the primary system none are participating....