|
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. |
On October 07 2016 04:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 04:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 07 2016 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:
LOL that's awesome, buying ads on the weather channel. "Hurricanes suck ass, huh? Well the GOP has a long history of preventing aid relief for areas suffering from natural disaster" Plus all those Republicans who deny climate change... Putting them on blast for holding up disaster relief is good. I am glad Clinton is bring it up because they have done is since Obama has been in office. From floods to Zika, they have made a practice of holding up federal to score political points and attempt to blame it on Obama. The weird think is that they continue to think it will work, when he approval ratings are high and congresses are through the floor. I don't know if the Clinton's want to go there with Haiti in their baggage. I laughed so hard I snorted when Tim Kaine said the Clinton foundation has a higher rating than the red cross. The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six. Most people have a barely-surface understanding of everything. The red cross likely has very high approval ratings in our country. I think it's a great idea. The red cross sucks ass, but most voters are shamefully ignorant.
Interestingly, the three government agencies most well-liked in the US are the CDC, NASA, and the Department of Defense. In that order.
|
and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding 
|
On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding
I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory?
Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that?
|
On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that?
you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios.
but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject.
|
https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/put-up-a-pepe-billboard
$5,010
raised so far
from 32 contributors
We need $5000 to pay for a digital billboard and put up the Donald Trump Pepe image you see on this page.
We'll put it up as soon as we hit $5000. If local news and the SPLC don't cover it immediately, we'll make sure to get footage and post it for you.
UPDATES
10/04/16 -
The Minimum has been reached and this is now a Wanted Bounty! Keep funding it! The more money it raises, the bigger the incentive for an Answer becomes.
Thanks election.
|
WASHINGTON —President Obama Thursday declared a state of emergency in Florida ahead of Hurricane Matthew.
Obama ordered federal aid to supplement response efforts following Matthew. The declaration is designed to help provide emergency services to protect lives and to lessen the threat of a catastrophe.
Obama's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate efforts to alleviate the suffering caused by the hurricane. The directive applies to more than two dozen counties in Florida.
The action will help the counties of Baker, Brevard, Broward, Citrus, Clay, Duval, Flagler, Glades, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Indian River, Lake, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia.
Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Emergency protective measures, limited to direct federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent federal funding.
Source
|
On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject.
Clearly you didn't notice that I wasn't referencing the hospital at all. I see why you wouldn't want to engage.
|
On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject.
At this point simply agreeing with him is easier than arguing against google search results.
|
On October 07 2016 05:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject. At this point simply agreeing with him is easier than arguing against google search results.
I love that now because something shows up on google (despite not disagreeing with what it says) is a reason to dismiss something out of hand. People wouldn't believe this if it was a movie.
|
On October 07 2016 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject. Clearly you didn't notice that I wasn't referencing the hospital at all. I see why you wouldn't want to engage.
let me try and explain this is a simple way for you: as demonstrated by the wapo, allegations of impropriety regarding the clinton foundation are pretty much bullshit. if you want to be honest and discuss that haiti disaster recovery in general was a disaster in and of itself and how th clinton foundation was part of that, that's fine but if you want to use it as an example of clinton foundation problems then i'm not interested.
and you went on to do some extreme connect-the-dots with helping haitian >>> florida and the 2000 presidential election. bless your heart.
|
On October 07 2016 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:28 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject. At this point simply agreeing with him is easier than arguing against google search results. I love that now because something shows up on google (despite not disagreeing with what it says) is a reason to dismiss something out of hand. People wouldn't believe this if it was a movie.
And it was also peer reviewed by other reporters and found to be less than accurate. You don't care about discussion anyways. You are here for your daily shot at Clinton and then you will move on. You are completely banal and just show up daily for some anti Clinton shitposting.
|
On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that?
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if turnout will be higher in than in the last two. I wonder what he bases that on
|
he's probably basing it on strong voter registration numbers.
i did a quick search and unfortunately there aren't really aggregate numbers - have to look at the SoS pages for each state.
|
On October 07 2016 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:28 Plansix wrote:On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject. At this point simply agreeing with him is easier than arguing against google search results. I love that now because something shows up on google (despite not disagreeing with what it says) is a reason to dismiss something out of hand. People wouldn't believe this if it was a movie.
You are looking silly because I literally lol'ed when I googled and found that it was the first 2 articles. You then demonstrated that you didnt even read the second article (maybe you read the first one cant say) because it does not even corroborate your claim.
While I am sure there are alot of elements of mismanagement involved, the extent, motivations and specifics are unclear.
So you basically found a footprint pointing in one direction and then followed an imaginary set of footprints to the wicked witches house.
|
On October 07 2016 05:33 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:23 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 07 2016 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:and for some reason 2 of them cant get no funding I'm presuming what I provided was satisfactory? Is anyone else thinking Mook is delusional thinking turnout will be higher than 08/12? I don't understand why they would even be saying that? you posted the two first links from googling 'clinton foundation haiti', and it seems you didn't even read the wapo factcheck one in full, which gives the original claim 4 pinnochios. but anyway, you can continue to believe that your brief googling to find some anecdotal evidence on some less-than-successful efforts somehow trumps the publicly available audits and the reports by charity watchdog organizations. im really not interested in engaging with you further on the subject. Clearly you didn't notice that I wasn't referencing the hospital at all. I see why you wouldn't want to engage. let me try and explain this is a simple way for you: as demonstrated by the wapo, allegations of impropriety regarding the clinton foundation are pretty much bullshit. and you went on to do some extreme connect-the-dots with helping haitian >>> florida and the 2000 presidential election. bless your heart.
Except that's not what was said, and like Trumps taking advantage of poorly written tax law, we're talking about doing bad things that are within the law (or at least appear so).
I didn't draw the connection to 2000 either, that was a quote from Acro's article. If you're going to act holier than thou at least try to keep up.
EDIT: for Rebs cosigning Ticklish's point which was about something I never even said. Holy crap people. Please reread the whole thing. I'm not going to keep correcting what was even said.
|
That large charity organizations suck when it comes to money management is a bad fact of life, basically. Note those articles pretty say Red Cross and Salvation Army are just as bad.
Fact that Hillary's brother got into gold mining in Haiti, or that Foundation donors are involved in some relief effort businesses is not all too shocking either. Charities basically end up being run like businesses, for better or for worse, when 8, 9, 10 figures start getting involved, and quite a bit of business is about networking and dealing with who you know. And charity dinners and fundraisers basically end up being some of the best meet-and-greet opportunities available. If it was purely donation = business, then yes, 100% corruption.
Is the Clinton Foundation well run? Not really. Compared to other charity organizations of similar size? Apparently run better than those. Should any of these orgs be given free passes because they represent good causes? No, especially they completely fail at their goals.
At the same time, though, these charities also face some of the worst logistics nightmares you can imagine. So a lot of problems people perceive as corruption or mismanagement are more like endless roadblocks and bureaucracy. You can't just march an international organization into another country and start building houses or hospitals. And you can't just hire whoever you want to build in another country either. Things like zoning, planning, permits and approvals still apply, though I imagine they're expedited to a large degree because of the situation and the representation.
Part of the benefit of these charity organizations is having the clout and reputation to cut through a lot of the bullshit.
|
On October 07 2016 05:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:
That large charity organizations suck when it comes to money management is a bad fact of life, basically. Note those articles pretty say Red Cross and Salvation Army are just as bad.
Fact that Hillary's brother got into gold mining in Haiti, or that Foundation donors are involved in some relief effort businesses is not all too shocking either. Charities basically end up being run like businesses, for better or for worse, when 8, 9, 10 figures start getting involved, and quite a bit of business is about networking and dealing with who you know. And charity dinners and fundraisers basically end up being some of the best meet-and-greet opportunities available. If it was purely donation = business, then yes, 100% corruption.
Is the Clinton Foundation well run? Not really. Compared to other charity organizations of similar size? Apparently run better than those. Should any of these orgs be given free passes because they represent good causes? No, especially they completely fail at their goals.
At the same time, though, these charities also face some of the worst logistics nightmares you can imagine. So a lot of problems people perceive as corruption or mismanagement are more like endless roadblocks and bureaucracy. You can't just march an international organization into another country and start building houses or hospitals. And you can't just hire whoever you want to build in another country either. Things like zoning, planning, permits and approvals still apply, though I imagine they're expedited to a large degree because of the situation and the representation.
Part of the benefit of these charity organizations is having the clout and reputation to cut through a lot of the bullshit.
I'd point out that none of the three charities mentioned are in the top 10 for ratings. They do share one thing in common though, they all have names that give them more credibility than organizations with higher ratings.
That's not to say I don't take your point about the pitfalls of human endeavors of such magnitude, but it doesn't explain away as much as you seem to want it to.
|
On October 07 2016 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:
That large charity organizations suck when it comes to money management is a bad fact of life, basically. Note those articles pretty say Red Cross and Salvation Army are just as bad.
Fact that Hillary's brother got into gold mining in Haiti, or that Foundation donors are involved in some relief effort businesses is not all too shocking either. Charities basically end up being run like businesses, for better or for worse, when 8, 9, 10 figures start getting involved, and quite a bit of business is about networking and dealing with who you know. And charity dinners and fundraisers basically end up being some of the best meet-and-greet opportunities available. If it was purely donation = business, then yes, 100% corruption.
Is the Clinton Foundation well run? Not really. Compared to other charity organizations of similar size? Apparently run better than those. Should any of these orgs be given free passes because they represent good causes? No, especially they completely fail at their goals.
At the same time, though, these charities also face some of the worst logistics nightmares you can imagine. So a lot of problems people perceive as corruption or mismanagement are more like endless roadblocks and bureaucracy. You can't just march an international organization into another country and start building houses or hospitals. And you can't just hire whoever you want to build in another country either. Things like zoning, planning, permits and approvals still apply, though I imagine they're expedited to a large degree because of the situation and the representation.
Part of the benefit of these charity organizations is having the clout and reputation to cut through a lot of the bullshit. I'd point out that none of the three charities mentioned are in the top 10 for ratings. They do share one thing in common though, they all have names that give them more credibility than organizations with higher ratings. That's not to say I don't take your point about the pitfalls of human endeavors of such magnitude, but it doesn't explain away as much as you seem to want it to.
true they're not top 10. but they are well rated (well, at least clinton one is very well rated). While we may not be entirely sure of your intent; mostly it comes off as you being a hard-core clinton hater.
|
On October 07 2016 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 05:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:
That large charity organizations suck when it comes to money management is a bad fact of life, basically. Note those articles pretty say Red Cross and Salvation Army are just as bad.
Fact that Hillary's brother got into gold mining in Haiti, or that Foundation donors are involved in some relief effort businesses is not all too shocking either. Charities basically end up being run like businesses, for better or for worse, when 8, 9, 10 figures start getting involved, and quite a bit of business is about networking and dealing with who you know. And charity dinners and fundraisers basically end up being some of the best meet-and-greet opportunities available. If it was purely donation = business, then yes, 100% corruption.
Is the Clinton Foundation well run? Not really. Compared to other charity organizations of similar size? Apparently run better than those. Should any of these orgs be given free passes because they represent good causes? No, especially they completely fail at their goals.
At the same time, though, these charities also face some of the worst logistics nightmares you can imagine. So a lot of problems people perceive as corruption or mismanagement are more like endless roadblocks and bureaucracy. You can't just march an international organization into another country and start building houses or hospitals. And you can't just hire whoever you want to build in another country either. Things like zoning, planning, permits and approvals still apply, though I imagine they're expedited to a large degree because of the situation and the representation.
Part of the benefit of these charity organizations is having the clout and reputation to cut through a lot of the bullshit. I'd point out that none of the three charities mentioned are in the top 10 for ratings. They do share one thing in common though, they all have names that give them more credibility than organizations with higher ratings. That's not to say I don't take your point about the pitfalls of human endeavors of such magnitude, but it doesn't explain away as much as you seem to want it to.
Sure, but #10 on that list is 95.48, and Clinton Foundation is 94.74, so not Top 10 but probably Top 20? (Apparently no way to sort the full listings)
Yeah, Red Cross is fairly average/mediocre, Salvation Army doesn't even have ratings.
|
What's with the recent clown hysteria? I thought it was satire at first
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
