Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #20400
- Started
- Last post
- 33,461 Responses
- KaitlinMcCarthy-1
- http://fortune.com/2…zarkonite
- Do people know that the Clintons themselves don't get that money? Close to 90% of the foundation's money goes to their causes.nb
- I'm not saying this story isn't relevant. It is. But it's not really corruption. Those donors were contributing to charities and development projects.nb
- I thought 90% went to them & running the foundation, and only 10% to their "causes," which is like most of the large charities and funds.monospaced
- How about when one of those Clinton charities or development projects is opposing BDS in favor of occupying and colonizing Palestine's land.KaitlinMcCarthy
- @monospaced, no, it's the other way. BUT, a very important point is that the Clinton Foundation operates a lot of projects themselves. It's a unique model.nb
- An argument can be made that by operating projects themselves promotes better outcomes, but it's not a great idea politically.nb
- the important point is that the donators not only get money toward a cause, they get access to the secretary, which is shady as fuckmonospaced
- The word is "donors" but yeah I agree with you. It's shady. But it's not evidence of corruption. Not yet, anyway.nb
- 1/10th of Clinton contributions go to charity. The other is claimed from giving "public speeches. https://pjmedia.com/…KaitlinMcCarthy
- McCarthy, you're either talking about something different, or you're confused. Link broken, btw.nb
- https://pjmedia.com/…KaitlinMcCarthy
- so we see some progress made here toward the end. note: the subjects are not completely blind and show some orientation in their environmentyurimon
- @set - this is the fuckwit we are dealing with... have you been sleeping?fadein11
- lol, stahp whining.yurimon
