You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Jem777 ago

@Are_we_Sure & @Rwesure

You are disinfo....but not just a typical shill. You are a paid insider or "blackhat". You know what that is. Where does your conscience go when defending the market if using children for sex trafficking. Where is your moral clarity?

For the Love of God....even NBC news has now reported Hillary Clinton covered up child sex trafficking in the US State Department.

You are either an attorney trying to influence a jury or have a guilty conscience about something regarding child sex trafficking. Time to come clean it go into hiding and lawyer up yourself.

Call Jorge Puello, maybe he will offer his services for legal defense as he did Laura Silsby while wanted in several other countries for child trafficking.

@Millennial_Falcon @DarkMath @ Dressage2 @Jangles @ BlackSmith21 @Commoner

RweSure ago

Why do you believe I am paid insider. I'm not.

Never worked in government at any level. Never been paid to come to voat.

.even NBC news has now reported Hillary Clinton covered up child sex trafficking in the US State Department.

of course they did not. Please find the original NBC report and find out what it says. Then find out the resolution.

You are either an attorney trying to influence a jury or have a guilty conscience about something regarding child sex trafficking. Time to come clean it go into hiding and lawyer up yourself.

This is fantasy on your part.

DarkMath ago

"Why do you believe I am paid insider."

Because you refuse to be reasonable when discussing these issues. There's actually a formal expectation in Law that people are "reasonable". Without reason the system breaks down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person. When people refuse to reason there are legal consequences.

For example you refuse to answer simple questions that may make you look bad. You don't have that option.

Stop ignoring the following question and provide us an answer:

Why is Columbia Economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs wrong and you're right?

:-D

@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner

RweSure ago

Because he's thinks he wants to dumb down actual ethics standards to make "schmoozing" look unethical which is a ludicrous idea and as a policy adviser to Bernie Sanders, he has partisan reasons and is not a disinterested observer. The success of the Clinton Foundation is that they wanted to take the Davos model, where people travel to Davos to look like a big macher and hobnob and schmooze and use it to do good in the world. If people want to donate money to charity because they think it will get them in the same room with Bono, well more power to them and we'll use their money to save the lives of AIDS patients. It's a simple attack their strength, political tactic.

and none of that has anything to do with being a paid insider as you yourself do it all the time.

Also I wonder if you are aware that Jeffrey Sachs has done his own work African development. That he essentially is a competitor to the Clinton Foundation for fundraising and prestige. Are you aware of his experimental program in Africa and the response of his critics? Do you think it would stand up to politically motivated scrutiny? I think Bill Gates's review of Sachs strengths and weaknesses are a good one. Ironically, one of the places Sachs failed is specifically an area that the Clinton Foundation has tried to work in, making sure farmers have access to markets.

DarkMath ago

"we'll use their money to save the lives of AIDS patients"

How do you know the money goes to the AIDS patients?

I already know your answer: "Because there was a Charity Audit.". But AreWeSure a charity audit is less rigorous than a Financial Audit which has to go to ground with all the money. A Charity Audit doesn't pierce the veil of a limited partnership. If you want to keep all the money people gave Bono to help AIDS patients for yourself just create a limited partnership to hide a theft. Call it "Bono's Limited Partnership for AIDS Relief." Then keep the money and try not to laugh when the charity auditor comes around.

Charity auditor: "How much did you give to AIDS patients?".

CFO at the Limited Partnership holding back laughter: "All of it."

Charity auditor: "Ok, that's good enough for me. Thanks for your time."

Bono to CFO at the Limited Partnership: "How much of the money I raised went to AIDS relief?"

CFO at the Limited Partnership really struggling now to hold back an uncontrollable urge to laugh hysterically: "All of it."

Bono: "Great. Thanks for your time."

And done. You now have stolen 98% of the money meant for Haitian Earthquake victims AIDS patients.

AreWeSure the problem is you didn't know there are different types of audits. Well Columbia Economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs DOES know there are different types of audits. So does retired banker Charles Ortel and author Peter Schweitzer who wrote "Clinton Cash".

Do you see what's going on? At this point if you are a "Reasonable Person" you will concede this point. You will say "You know what I don't know if the money actually went to AIDS patients or Haitian Earthquake victims. I'm going to finally watch Clinton Cash to see if there is any other evidence."

But you won't do that AreWeSure because you aren't a "Reasonable Person" in the eyes of the law.

:-D

@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner

Blacksmith21 ago

Don't forget that CharityNavigator.org, the preeminent site for rating non-profit orgs, "delisted" CF/CGI because "it didn't fit their model for assessing non-profits". Translated, CF/CGI was so bad, and they received heat not to report, they just disappeared CF/CGI right off their site.

There are so many ways to cook books. I wouldn't believe the time of day if a Clinton told it to me. Where is Eric Braverman again?

Are_we__sure ago

Blacksmith, all of what you say is wrong. They were not delisted because they were "so bad." Charity Navigator didn't rate them, because couldn't assess them due to a reorganization at the CF. At the time they said this

Why isn’t this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator does rate the CF and it gives the Clinton Foundation it's highest score: four stars, rating it a 93.91 of 100. It's gotten a 4 star review, two years in a row. As a point of comparison, the American Red Cross gets a 83.33 and City of Hope gets a 90.13. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

As pointed out above the this claim by you is completely false.

because "it didn't fit their model for assessing non-profits". Translated, CF/CGI was so bad

The Clinton Foundation changed its corporate makeup so Charity Navigator couldn't do an apples to apples comparison. They address this in their FAQ.

Why hasn’t Charity Navigator published a rating of the Clinton Foundation for the last few years? For each charity, our rating system evaluates numerous financial and accounting metrics, including a comparison of how these metrics change from one year to the next. In 2013, the Clinton Foundation merged with one of its affiliates, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). This merger made it difficult to compare financial information of the combined entities with financial information from the Clinton Foundation before the merger. In situations like this with any charity, we will reevaluate if the charity provides consolidated financial data that will allow us to perform an accurate year-over-year comparison.

How is it that Charity Navigator is now able to provide a rating of the Clinton Foundation? At our request, the Clinton Foundation provided pro forma consolidated financial information (in particular, a pro-forma Form 990). This information allowed us to conduct the analysis necessary for us to issue a rating.

What do other charity overseers say? CharityWatch gives them an A, one below the highest grade of A+ https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Guidestar gives the Clinton Foundation a Platinum level award for transparency. Of 128,000 nonprofits only 1,000 achieved the Plantinum level.

Blacksmith21 ago

You have no, and forever more, invalidate anything you have to stay with more stupidity. Funny how The Chronicle of Philanthropy blatantly disagrees with you.

Charity Navigator Removes Clinton Foundation From Watch List https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Charity-Navigator-Removes/234700

Again, you are a liar and a shill. Go fuck yourself with a Sawzall.