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.
On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote: [quote] One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed.
This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said.
Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that.
Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!'
Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay.
Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it.
As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
On September 08 2016 02:59 CobaltBlu wrote: Does he think the US military doesn't have plans about ISIS already? Why does he want to increase the size of the military? Planning to fight with someone? How does he plan to pay for expanding the military for no reason?
I feel a Mark Twain quote is in order (although given the Churchillian Effect, who knows if it was actually Twain- the man is a quote magnet)
"By and by when each nation has 20,000 battleships and 5,000,000 soldiers we shall all be safe and the wisdom of statesmanship will stand confirmed."
Or
"It is sound statesmanship to add two battleships every time our neighbor adds one and two stories to our skyscrapers every time he piles a new one on top of his to threaten our light. There is no limit to this soundness but the sky."
On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote: I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects.
One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed.
This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said.
Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that.
Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!'
Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay.
Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it.
As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Apparently his jersey is the #1 seller right now so it would appear there's quite a bit of support which is nice. If he sucks a fat nut this season he's pretty much done for though.
On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote: [quote]
Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that.
Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!'
Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay.
Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it.
As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
A North Dakota judge issued a warrant Wednesday for the arrest of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who is accused of spray-painting construction equipment during a protest against the Dakota Access pipeline.
Court records show Stein was charged Wednesday in Morton County with misdemeanor counts of criminal trespass and criminal mischief. The same charges have been filed against her running mate, Ajamu Baraka.
On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote: [quote] Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it.
As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
He comes to bonkers conclusions that every other fact check and charity watching organization reject. Ortel is published in Washingtontimes and is up on gold and silver selling websites. His argument is that since the CF changes to do AIDS work between 2002 to 2005, it is no longer 501(c)(3) because its purpose isn't specific enough. Rubbish. The IRS never enforces "specific purpose" rules and he can't show that AIDS drug spending isn't charitable.
EDIT: the $140 million raised and only $9 million spent talking point is still total trash and obviously false.
On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote: A Wall Street Analyst has turned his talents on the Clinton Foundation. His report is less than flattering. Finding that the Clinton Foundation doesn't appear to meet the criteria of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, he basically concludes that it's a giant slush fund where the vast majority of its proceeds were sent to family and friends for their own gain through one means or another. For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." From 1997 though 2014, $2 billion has been donated to the Clinton Foundation. His most interesting conclusion is that the Clinton Foundation and affiliated entities created "illegal private gains" in the amount of $100 billion or more since 1997.
I can't speak to the validity of the analysis (and the full analysis isn't available yet), but the raw numbers that he cites in his report are damning if nothing else. I also think that it is interesting that the Clinton Foundation has never been audited (not that the lack of an audit is surprising).
These numbers are "damning" if you take them out of context and ignore how the Clinton Foundation actually operates. The line of attack about the Foundation's 2013 expenses that you just cited has actually repeatedly been brought up dishonestly by the GOP -- here's a thorough debunking.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).” [...]
Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.
By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.
“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”
In order to get a fuller picture of the Clinton Foundation’s operations, he said, people need to look at the foundation’s consolidated audit, which includes the financial data on separate affiliates like the Clinton Health Access Initiative.
“Otherwise,” he said, “you are looking at just a piece of the pie.”
Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
The charge in the Ortel report is that the Foundation isn't doing valid 501(c)(3) charitable work, so it isn't a valid operating charity.
Here is what you wrote in your post:
On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote: [...] For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." [...]
A quick google search reveals that you directly copied that line (and not only the part in quotes), with minimal edits, from one of the numerous pages that include it, mostly blog posts by conservatives and/or conspiracy theorists that have tried to push that false narrative about the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps was it taken from this post from zerohedge (written by "Tyler Durden" no less, because of course he picked that username), which was put online yesterday to mention Ortel's analysis? In any case, I literally just presented you with an analysis which utterly debunks this line of attack about the Clinton Foundation being a "slush fund". Your entire post, and your comment that the "raw numbers" are "damning", are built on a complete misunderstanding (or, perhaps, from the actual authors of that narrative, a deliberate lie) of how the Clinton Foundation operates.
Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know
Ladies and gentlemen, you may recall that kwizach drew quite a bit of fire from some of the posters in this thread at various points during the summer. His post above is very good example of why no one with half of a brain enjoys engaging him. Let's break it down.
Here we go -- back to attacking me personally instead of the argument being made. You seem to misremember what was said in this thread too, because it was the other way around, as anyone can easily check by reading p. 4781 and the following ones. I agree though, let's break down your defense of your initial post.
On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: I made my first post citing to the Ortel report. Kwizach then responds by correctly pointing out that direct aid numbers don't mean much if you're talking about a charity that does its charitable work through operations as opposed to simply passing out money to people, and he cited an article supporting his point. I then respond with this:
On September 08 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote: The charge in the Ortel report is that the Foundation isn't doing valid 501(c)(3) charitable work, so it isn't a valid operating charity.
In other words, what I said is that kwizach's point is inapplicable in this situation because Ortel is claiming that the Clinton Foundation's operations don't qualify as operational work. What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument.
If you had read my initial post or done a quick search on google as I mentioned it in my second post, you would have noticed that the origin of the sentence that you included in your first post and that I addressed first ("For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses"."), is not originally from the Ortel .pdf. It is a deceiving line of attack that has been been brought up repeatedly by conservatives (and/or conspiracy theorists) against the Clinton Foundation over the last couple of years -- in fact, the article I originally linked to in my first post addressed this claim when it was coming from the Carly for America SuperPAC. The sentence in this form was associated to the Ortel .pdf on sites like this one, but it remains a deceiving line of attack that existed prior to the release of the .pdf you referred to in your original post, and it was solely about addressing how the CF spends it money, not its status as a nonprofit (Ortel's point).
Now, the fact that the Ortel .pdf claims that the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit doesn't change the fact that the Clinton Foundation still performs its charitable work through its own operations. You can argue that they do so illegally since that's what Ortel is claiming, but it obviously doesn't change the fact that they're still performing that work. And simply saying that they're performing this work but with an invalid 501(c)(3) status is not what the charge that I addressed initially is about, since it is about claiming that the Clinton Foundation essentially keeps for itself most of the money it receives (I believe that's what you were referring to yourself, in fact, when you said that the "raw numbers" were "damning"). Again, check the origin of the sentences you tied to the Ortel .pdf in your post if you don't believe me. That line of attack was distinct from the status of the CF as a nonprofit. It was about how the CF used its money. But let's proceed in our review of our discussion:
On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: Now, this is a fairly nuanced point, and normally I would cut people some slack for not fully grasping it. But kwizach is an exception. He gets it, and he's just strawmanning and misconstruing arguments as he always does. Here's the proof. Take a look at his response above and how he selectively edits my first post:
On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote: Here is what you wrote in your post:
On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote: [...] For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." [...]
On September 08 2016 06:53 xDaunt wrote: A Wall Street Analyst has turned his talents on the Clinton Foundation. His report is less than flattering. Finding that the Clinton Foundation doesn't appear to meet the criteria of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, he basically concludes that it's a giant slush fund where the vast majority of its proceeds were sent to family and friends for their own gain through one means or another. For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses."
Oh look, there's the critical piece of information that's central to showing that the article that kwizach cited is likely irrelevant to Ortel's analysis!
And again, I say "likely" because I haven't fully adopted Ortel's analysis as my own (and because we can't see the entirety of his analysis), which I made clear in my original post and in subsequent ones, but kwizach can never be bothered with such details.
As Aquanim pointed out, I directly addressed this quote in the second paragraph of my post, so your accusations are baseless. Again, I started by quoting the "in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid" sentence because it is a charge that is anterior to the Ortel .pdf and which was made by other people who did not tie it to Ortel's (yet to be made) argument about the Foundation's status as a nonprofit. I then addressed Ortel's point about the Clinton Foundation not being a valid 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the second and final part of my post. It's a spurious and an unsubstantiated claim by a random individual and should be treated as such.
To sum up, Ortel's claim is not substantiated, and the charge against the Clinton Foundation that you included in your post next to your mention of Ortel's .pdf pre-existed his .pdf, came from other sources, and had already been thoroughly debunked. And even if Ortel's claim that the Clinton Foundation is not a valid 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore operates illegally was true, it still would not change the fact that the CF's operational work exists, is well documented, and makes the charge that I addressed ignorant and nonsensical. It's a deliberately misleading interpretation of what "direct aid" means and of the CF's operational work.
On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote: [quote]
As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
dude what the f are you saying, "some blow back", "first sign of resistance". Being labeled a racist as an undergrad on campus is EXTREMELY damaging.
On September 08 2016 09:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote: @xDaunt:
On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know
Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't".
I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now.
Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily.
Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses."
That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).” Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.” “We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.” Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these: Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
Swing and a miss! You may actually want to take the time to understand what the big kids are talking about before you post something like this. You've completely missed the point.
On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument.
From your own clarification. This is what Cannons is rebuking, something you've stated twice now and continue to act bewildered about when addressed.
And clearly you don't understand the issue either. Now go read this post again. It's all there. I'll even help you out by highlighting the key provisions, half of which you've already cited:
On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: I made my first post citing to the Ortel report. Kwizach then responds by correctly pointing out that direct aid numbers don't mean much if you're talking about a charity that does its charitable work through operations as opposed to simply passing out money to people, and he cited an article supporting his point. I then respond with this:
On September 08 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote: The charge in the Ortel report is that the Foundation isn't doing valid 501(c)(3) charitable work, so it isn't a valid operating charity.
In other words, what I said is that kwizach's point is inapplicable in this situation because Ortel is claiming that the Clinton Foundation's operations don't qualify as operational work. What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument.
And that is the reason he states that the Clinton Foundation doesn't pass the operational test in his view.
An organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities does not further an exempt purpose.
The two sentences are not only tied together, but you yourself tied them together with "And the problem here is.." so you clearly realize what's going on here. They have argued against his reasoning for the statement, what can anyone possibly say about the statement itself other than nuh-huh if you don't allow them to address the reasoning for it. There is absolutely no point in descending into this kind of semantical obtuseness, regardless of what unresolved rage you have towards kwizach.
Visitors to Yosemite national park in California have more room to roam after officials on Wednesday announced a 400-acre expansion of the park – its largest in nearly 70 years.
The addition features wetlands and a grassy meadow surrounded by tall pine trees on rolling hills that are home to endangered wildlife.
Ackerson Meadow is located along Yosemite’s western boundary. The area was purchased from private owners by the Trust for Public Land, a not-for-profit conservation group, for $2.3m and donated to the park.
Officials told the Associated Press that Yosemite would preserve the land – historically used for logging and cattle grazing – as habitat for wildlife such as the great gray owl, the largest owl in North America and listed as endangered by California wildlife officials.
Robin and Nancy Wainwright, who had owned the land since 2006, sold it to the trust. Robin Wainwright said they lost a “few hundred thousand dollars” passing up a lucrative offer from a developer to build a resort.
He said he often saw bears strolling through the meadow and owls soaring over fields of vibrant wildflowers blooming in the springtime. He did not want that experience available only to those who could afford a resort.
“To have that accessible by everyone, to me, is just a great thing,” Wainwright said. “It was worth losing a little bit of money for that.”
The park’s boundary has seen some minor changes over the years, but this expansion is the largest since 1949 to the park of nearly 750,000 acres total, park spokesman Scott Gediman said.
More than 4.5 million people are expected to visit Yosemite this year, which Gediman said would set a record for the park, which celebrated its 125th anniversary in 2015.
Visitors pass Ackerson Meadow on their way to Hetch Hetchy reservoir, which provides drinking water to San Francisco.
On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
dude what the f are you saying, "some blow back", "first sign of resistance". Being labeled a racist as an undergrad on campus is EXTREMELY damaging.
I was able to avoid being called a racist on campus through this neat trick of not doing or saying things that many people view as racist. Now maybe some ultra SJW will say that my very existence is racist because of white privilege or whatever and if they do call me racist, well, I'm just going to have to endure that and hope an employer can tell the difference between me and actual racists. First amendment and all that. Same freedom that allows you to proclaim your Trump support protects those who judge you for it.
On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
dude what the f are you saying, "some blow back", "first sign of resistance". Being labeled a racist as an undergrad in campus is EXTREMELY damaging.
Welcome to the real world. Did you miss the TV special where they told you politics was a sensitive subject where people had charged feelings? That you shouldn't talk about politics at the dinner table? Don't bring up politics with your new girlfriend's dad? Did you think that was a joke? Do you think its like real fun to be pro-choice in the bible belt? Or pro taxes and social programs when you work on wall street?
Welcome to real life, where your opinions matter and effect how people think of you. I don't voice political opinions at work, even on local elections. I don't voice them at social gatherings with people I don't know. Sounds like you are learning a valuable lesson at college.
On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote: [quote]
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
dude what the f are you saying, "some blow back", "first sign of resistance". Being labeled a racist as an undergrad on campus is EXTREMELY damaging.
I was able to avoid being called a racist on campus through this neat trick of not doing or saying things that many people view as racist. Now maybe some ultra SJW will say that my very existence is racist because of white privilege or whatever and if they do call me racist, well, I'm just going to have to endure that and hope an employer can tell the difference between me and actual racists. First amendment and all that. Same freedom that allows you to proclaim your Trump support protects those who judge you for it.
I might be voting for trump because I might just want a candidate who doesn't vomit into a glass of water and then drink from it (cheap shot I know), but instead of exploring that, you can just call me a racist and call it a day. This shit should not be encouraged, its a college. I was under the impression that calling someone a racist was a serious allegation and carried a lot of weight and can seriously mess you up in the future. So yes the rational thing for any trump supporter on college campuses to do is to not say shit and silently cast your vote (maybe even support HRC publicly!).
I know we agree on the fact that people shouldn't act criminally because someone is a trump supporter, that much is obvious.
Biology]major wasn't it you advocating for people to essentially be huge shitheads to one another? That somehow what the world needs is everyone to crank their douche dials to 11 and that would fix our problems?
On September 08 2016 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
dude what the f are you saying, "some blow back", "first sign of resistance". Being labeled a racist as an undergrad on campus is EXTREMELY damaging.
I was able to avoid being called a racist on campus through this neat trick of not doing or saying things that many people view as racist. Now maybe some ultra SJW will say that my very existence is racist because of white privilege or whatever and if they do call me racist, well, I'm just going to have to endure that and hope an employer can tell the difference between me and actual racists. First amendment and all that. Same freedom that allows you to proclaim your Trump support protects those who judge you for it.
I might be voting for trump because I might just want a candidate who doesn't vomit into a glass of water and then drink from it (cheap shot I know), but instead of exploring that, you can just call me a racist and call it a day. This shit should not be encouraged, its a college. I was under the impression that calling someone a racist was a serious allegation and carried a lot of weight and can seriously mess you up in the future. So yes the rational thing for any trump supporter on college campuses to do is to not say shit and silently cast your vote (maybe even support HRC publicly!).
I know we agree on the fact that people shouldn't act criminally because someone is a trump supporter, that much is obvious.
Even so it doesn't look great for your "totally not a racist" credentials if on one side of the see-saw you have "vomited into a glass of water" and on the other you have "promises to enact policies that systematically discriminate against non-whites" and you state you prefer the latter. I mean sure, you really could be voting Trump as a vote against vomit water but we could still draw some conclusions from the fact that you find racism more palatable than vomit water. If someone genuinely believes Trump is a racist candidate that wants to enact racist policies it can hardly be surprising if they conclude Trump supporters support racism, or at least prefer racism to whatever Hillary is selling. You may disagree with their starting premise that Trump is a racist candidate but what they think isn't really up to you in the same way that what you think about it isn't up to them.
If I understand your stance correctly it's "I don't believe Trump is a racist and therefore I believe people who call me a racist for supporting him are wrong" which I am 110% fine with. But you add on "and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to call me a racist". Well, what you believe isn't necessarily important, it's a subjective label. If they don't share your belief then they can call you whatever they perceive you to be and you can know that they're wrong. Hell, take baby killer and pro-choice. I don't demand that I'm not called a baby killer for being pro-choice, it's enough for me to know that they're wrong. You can know it's one thing, they can know it's another, it's subjective.
Incidentally I have a lot of anti-SJW beliefs. Two recent examples are the whole Usain Bolt Ellen micro aggression thing and the Burkini ban thing. SJWs on my facebook feed erupted about how it was a microaggression because Ellen can't just ride a black man, completely ignoring the fact that black people exist in cultures outside the United States with their own racial contexts. Bolt is a black Jamaican man from a black majority country who Ellen recognized for his accomplishments, the only way it could have been a microaggression is if your starting point is "Usain Bolt as a person would be diminished by Ellen riding him" which in turn relies upon you projecting your own American ideas of what it means to be a black man onto him purely because of the colour of his skin. White American girls telling a black man from Jamaica what his racial context is. Similarly France is not the United States and has a completely different cultural approach to different cultures. There is a two hundred year old policy of Gallicization that is central to the idea of France and what it means to be French. Simultaneously defending the cultural background of the Burkini while condemning France for demanding that Muslims in France conform to their Gallic vision of what it means to be French shows an incredible level of ignorance and US centrism. The starting premise is that the only correct values are the American melting pot and therefore the French should be condemned for not adhering to that and instead having their own integrationist culture. It's defensible only if you come from a place of supreme cultural objectivism and people who believe that don't often defend the Burka. What was actually happening was a display of ignorance of French culture, history and values posing as morally superior cultural awareness.
I didn't say all that shit to them because they're facebook friends and I just don't give a shit. The person chiefly responsible invites me round to her house pretty regularly and I don't want my politics to get in the way of a good relationship.
On September 08 2016 10:41 OuchyDathurts wrote: Biology]major wasn't it you advocating for people to essentially be huge shitheads to one another? That somehow what the world needs is everyone to crank their douche dials to 11 and that would fix our problems?
That was on the internet. This is real life, on a campus and might hurt his dating prospects for that semester.
On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
Just like being a vocal supporter of Trump around minorities, you might feel some blow back.
except one is a public figure in a apolitical organization who has a MASSIVE audience. Can you clarify what you mean by "some blow back".
Them telling you that they don't like you and you are a racist? This is not complex shit, the guy has terrible polling among minorities and is perceived by many as racist. If you want to be out there saying "I support Trump and Im proud," you have to toughen up a bit and deal with some of the negative feedback. Not cry about the mean SJW who won't are mean to you.
It doesn't matter how big of a star he is and professional sports has never been apolitical for black people. If are going to take a stand for your beliefs, you can't whine at the first sign of resistance.
dude what the f are you saying, "some blow back", "first sign of resistance". Being labeled a racist as an undergrad on campus is EXTREMELY damaging.
So don't support the open racist and you won't be called a racist for supporting racists?
Yea some random person on campus calling you racist isn't going to impact you in any way. Unless some group dedicates their time and effort into informing as many people as possible and somehow learns what jobs you will be applying to it really just comes down to them saying words to you. Especially if you are going to a larger university like the 3 I attended. Maybe if you go to some super tiny school?
EPT
