US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5359

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.

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.

May 28, 2015 - Five Leaders In 2016 Republican White House Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Rubio, Paul Are Only Republicans Even Close To Clinton

In a general election matchup, Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio. She leads other top Republicans:
46 - 37 percent over Christie;
47 - 40 percent over Huckabee;
47 - 37 percent over Bush;
46 - 38 percent over Walker;
48 - 37 percent over Cruz;
50 - 32 percent over Trump.


34. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

                Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Favorable 20% 34% 7% 20% 23% 18%
Unfavorable 69 52 85 69 67 70
Hvn't hrd enough 10 13 7 11 10 11
REFUSED 1 1 1 - 1 1