|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
it's like you dudes never heard of Charles Ortel. Charles Ortel, a longtime financial adviser, said he has spent the past 15 months digging into the Clinton Foundation’s public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures. That includes records from the foundation’s many offshoots—including the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiative—as well as its foreign subsidiaries.
This week, Ortel is starting to release his findings in the first of a series of up to 40 planned reports on his website. His allegation: “this is a charity fraud.”
The Sunday Times of London described Ortel as “one of the finest analysts of financial statements on the planet” in a 2009 story detailing the troubles at AIG. you may want to read up things he says on his site. Ex: http://charlesortel.com/ or http://charlesortel.com/the-real-clinton-foundation-record-is-getting-exposed22 May 2016
Dear Friends,
Your help and encouragement in recent weeks is already bringing overdue attention upon the largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted--that being the network of illegal activities worldwide, whose heart is the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation, directed by certain individuals and together with numerous affiliates, has been part of an international charity fraud network whose entire cumulative scale (counting inflows and outflows) approaches and may even exceed $100 billion, measured from
1997 forward
|
Isn't he a super hardcore birther? Or am I thinking of another guy with that name?
|
Where have I heard that the Dem Primary process is rigged before? Was it reddit/s4p? Trump is straight appropriating their language. I can't wait to see what reddit/s4p has to say in the next hour about this.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjfTcg4WYAAAMs2.jpg:large)
|
On May 28 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:
Isn't he a super hardcore birther? Or am I thinking of another guy with that name?
Nope, that's him. Funny how all these people with massive gaps in their credibility keep finding such damning evidence!
|
Yeah, Trump supporters aren't particularly pleased they have to try to defend Trump on this so far. Both Hillary and Trump think America would rather them lie to their faces about this debate than risk debating Bernie. So far it's going over like a lead balloon but It'll be interesting to see if Trump people close ranks on this one.
|
On May 28 2016 04:13 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 04:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 28 2016 03:48 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote:
By that argument, all politicians are corrupt and so are business people. And Judges. And anyone in any position of power for a period of time. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption. To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here. Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility. I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense. I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**. *If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs. ** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage. I wish i had that faith in humanity but i don't. I blame Bernie. He is running on an Occupy Wall Street platform of waging war on the 1% so Hillary had to pretend she wasn't a center-left liberal. HRC has always been okay with financiers and the continuing existence of Wall Street. So is Obama. So was Clinton1. But because Bernie is in the race she has to dance around acting like she is going to stick it to Wall Street when we all know she is just going to keep up the current Obama regulations.
Fuck Obama's regulations with its job growth, high approval rating, health care reforms, finance reforms, reduced war involvement, tax reduction, market growth, and increased social reforms. Only Bernie, Trump, and the GOP are against that.
|
Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source
|
lol, I knew it, the Donald can't stand the Bern! 
|
I'd agree except he's going to be a nobody after june 7th.
|
Some day I will find out who thought up this poorly conceived plan in the Bernie camp.
|
On May 28 2016 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 05:03 Plansix wrote:
Isn't he a super hardcore birther? Or am I thinking of another guy with that name? Nope, that's him. Funny how all these people with massive gaps in their credibility keep finding such damning evidence!
I mean really, it's just the corrupt clinton+obama super illuminati foundation discrediting these patriotic heroes beforehand, knowing they would uncover their deepest darkest secrets and expose their reptilian origins to the rest of the world.
|
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it (in fact I'm pretty sure if Clinton pulled this maneuver Trump would call her a coward on Twitter), but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power."
|
On May 28 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it, but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power."
Literally debating the assumed loser is nothing but awful for Trump. Its like asking Hilary to debate Ted Cruz.
|
On May 28 2016 05:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it, but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power." Literally debating the assumed loser is nothing but awful for Trump. Its like asking Hilary to debate Ted Cruz.
Well duh it's awful for Trump (unless he expected Sanders to shit on Clinton).
Offering to debate the assumed loser, then not doing so and offering a hackneyed non-justification, is awful and cowardly both. It's also mediagrubbing clickbait generating, but that's par for the Trump course.
Edit: If it tells me anything, it reinforces my understanding that his campaign runs on clickbait, incompetence, overpromising, and backtracking. But that's also par for the course.
|
On May 28 2016 06:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 05:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it, but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power." Literally debating the assumed loser is nothing but awful for Trump. Its like asking Hilary to debate Ted Cruz. Well duh it's awful for Trump (unless he expected Sanders to shit on Clinton). Saying you'll offer to debate the assumed loser, then not doing so and offering a hackneyed non-justification, is awful and cowardly both.
He was pretty clear about the condition that he wanted $10m+ to go to charity.
|
On May 28 2016 06:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 06:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it, but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power." Literally debating the assumed loser is nothing but awful for Trump. Its like asking Hilary to debate Ted Cruz. Well duh it's awful for Trump (unless he expected Sanders to shit on Clinton). Saying you'll offer to debate the assumed loser, then not doing so and offering a hackneyed non-justification, is awful and cowardly both. He was pretty clear about the condition that he wanted $10m+ to go to charity.
lol
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281557-tech-firm-well-pay-10m-for-trump-sanders-debate
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/27/bob-arum-offers-20-million-for-trump-sanders-debat/
Maybe Hillary and Trump just back out of the debates with each other too? Johnson's at 10% nationally and pulling more from D's than R's. I'm going to go ahead and say this election cycle is especially embarrassing as an American.
|
On May 28 2016 06:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 06:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it, but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power." Literally debating the assumed loser is nothing but awful for Trump. Its like asking Hilary to debate Ted Cruz. Well duh it's awful for Trump (unless he expected Sanders to shit on Clinton). Saying you'll offer to debate the assumed loser, then not doing so and offering a hackneyed non-justification, is awful and cowardly both. He was pretty clear about the condition that he wanted $10m+ to go to charity.
I'm pretty sure it takes more than five days of negotiations for networks to organize 10 million dollars for charity or rule it out, and the only evidence that they wouldn't is Trump's word (which is worth zilch). So pardon me for questioning whether there might be ulterior motives.
Edit: And now there are clear other venues, but no word from the Trump camp. So the rotten stink persists, at least for me. I guess some people are completely brainwashed trusting that Trump could never wimp out of anything, though.
|
Trump is great at dominating news; which would be a very helpful skill for another administration, if they could make a deal with Trump that gets him all over the news whenever they have a scandal they wanna downplay. i.e. using one major story to drown out another.
|
On May 28 2016 06:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 06:03 oBlade wrote:On May 28 2016 06:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:59 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 28 2016 05:56 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow. That story from Trump stinks to high heaven. His campaign must have realized that, given past Sanders comments about him, this could have ended up just Sanders listing off why he hates Trump in a place all his supporters would be watching at once, and that that wasn't worth the potential payoff. Better opinion of Sanders than me, and I voted for the guy (though am probably overly jaded with him at this point).
Pretty weird how this would totally read as wimpy to Trump supporters if literally anyone but Trump did it, but since he did it it's going to be some bizarre "display of power." Literally debating the assumed loser is nothing but awful for Trump. Its like asking Hilary to debate Ted Cruz. Well duh it's awful for Trump (unless he expected Sanders to shit on Clinton). Saying you'll offer to debate the assumed loser, then not doing so and offering a hackneyed non-justification, is awful and cowardly both. He was pretty clear about the condition that he wanted $10m+ to go to charity. I'm pretty sure it takes more than five days of negotiations for networks to organize 10 million dollars for charity or rule it out, and the only evidence that they wouldn't is Trump's word (which is worth zilch). So pardon me for questioning whether there might be ulterior motives. Edit: And now there are clear other venues, but no word from the Trump camp. So the rotten stink persists, at least for me. I guess some people are completely brainwashed trusting that Trump could never wimp out of anything, though.
You mean you suspect there might have been some kind of hidden agenda to the whole thing, like trying to make a primary candidate for the opposing party look like a loser?
|
occam's razor, the simpler explanation is that Trump has to be in the news every day. It's how he feeds. So he does it to stay alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
