Octopus Overlords

You know who I miss? Eco-logic. There was a guy who really knew how to shit on a thread.

Smutly wrote: Just because I have the freedom of speech to post Hillary in a hot swimsuit doesn't mean that I should. .

Fwiw I really dislike pile-ons, and the weird masochistic fetish that some "liberals" on this board have with getting riled to trolling is eye roll masterpiece theatre. However this quote struck me in particular as a transparent example of crying wolf. You are well aware that first amendment validation has nothing to do with the forum norms of posting provocative photos in a non NSFW thread. It's trolling, not intelligent conservatism. Though I didn't see the original pic, so I may be completely off base.


I

Smutly wrote:Why do you think so many stay away?

Certainly the answer is different for each one. But as has been pointed out dozens of times in the past - the conservative voices that have left weren't conservative voices that were ridiculed. Not all conservative voices here are ridiculed. Outnumbered? Yes. But not all are ridiculed. Rip and em2nought are ridiculed constantly because they are trolls that deserve every ounce of ridicule that goes their way. They aren't conservatives, nor do they offer conservative voices to the board.

There are folks like msduncan, who is a genuine believer in the Reagan Revolution that transformed the Party into the modern conservative variant, but he's also a hot head. There are liberal equivalents here, and they are treated the same way as msduncan. I mean, is there anyone here who respected the political thoughts of folks like farley2k? I sure as hell didn't. And while I think that Fireball offers great depth to his politics (since it's also his job), he and I have gone against each other many times because of how he approaches dialogue sometimes.

We don't discuss issues here on these boards anymore. It's all "my team" versus "your team" with made up allegations and nonsense. More than anything, that change is what I suspect has driven the most voices away (from both sides). I would love to discuss continued healthcare reform, or tax reform, or literally ANYTHING aside from petty Benghazi horseshit, or anything related to Trump.

Reading that and thinking about all the times in the past me and RunningMn9 got into it brought this song to mind.

Note: I'm talking about the "season's change, feelings change" part, not the part where I sacrifice tomorrow to have RunningMn9 here today.

RunningMn9 wrote:I would love to discuss continued healthcare reform, or tax reform, or literally ANYTHING aside from petty Benghazi horseshit, or anything related to Trump.

To be fair, though, it's not exactly our fault that these topics dominate American political discourse. It's not like the OO liberals would shout down a sincere and serious discussion of the entitlement burden by screaming about Trump. If there were serious conservatives in R&P, I don't think they would derail a thread about police brutality with Benghazi conspiracies.

Right now isn't the best time for rational discourse, as a certain segment of the population (hardcore Trump supporters) have become so aggressively irrational that otherwise tolerant conservatives have become a bit impatient.

It is just a really, really ugly season for American politics, and it is showing in hot tempers and lost friends.

Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

Moliere wrote:Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

At least she made some? I got nothing lol

Moliere wrote:Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

I don't see anything disingenuous about it, provided the foundation spends it's money appropriately.

It's like saying one's charitable donations are disingenuous when spent on charities for one's pet causes rather than spread out among all causes.

Defiant wrote:

Moliere wrote:Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

I don't see anything disingenuous about it, provided the foundation spends it's money appropriately.

It's like saying one's charitable donations are disingenuous when spent on charities for one's pet causes rather than spread out among all causes.

They spend most of their money on salaries, travel, fundraising, etc. Very little is money that actually goes to poor people. Although they do supposedly do some administrative stuff that is supposed to help some poor people. Mostly a way to give cushy high paying jobs to Clinton cronies tax free. Plus it is good brand marketing.

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Moliere wrote:Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

I don't see anything disingenuous about it, provided the foundation spends it's money appropriately.

It's like saying one's charitable donations are disingenuous when spent on charities for one's pet causes rather than spread out among all causes.

They spend most of their money on salaries, travel, fundraising, etc. Very little is money that actually goes to poor people. Although they do supposedly do some administrative stuff that is supposed to help some poor people. Mostly a way to give cushy high paying jobs to Clinton cronies tax free. Plus it is good brand marketing.

eh? It's rated "A" here

12% to overhead, 88% to programs. Is there some definition of "most" I'm unfamiliar with?

If the Clinton Foundation was a partisan organization, why would Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush assist with their efforts in responding to natural disasters in the Indian Ocean, New Orleans and Haiti?

A foundation doesn't have to give away money to be tax-exempt. The Clinton Foundation spends money on operating its charitable initiatives, not grants. The idea that a charity's impact is measured by how little is spent on staff is ludicrous and short-sighted to those who understand the sector. No one says Apple wastes its money by paying its management team more than their engineers.

It takes money to get groups together to discuss how each can cooperate on education, access markets, reduce environmental impact, and obtain better healthcare at lower costs. Moral persuasion to implement new initiatives costs money. It's also smarter to negotiate a better price for medications for 11.5 million in 70 countries, rather than just helping them pay high prices. There's no taxpayer money involved, so if you don't like it then don't contribute.

Defiant wrote:

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Moliere wrote:Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

I don't see anything disingenuous about it, provided the foundation spends it's money appropriately.

It's like saying one's charitable donations are disingenuous when spent on charities for one's pet causes rather than spread out among all causes.

They spend most of their money on salaries, travel, fundraising, etc. Very little is money that actually goes to poor people. Although they do supposedly do some administrative stuff that is supposed to help some poor people. Mostly a way to give cushy high paying jobs to Clinton cronies tax free. Plus it is good brand marketing.

eh? It's rated "A" here

12% to overhead, 88% to programs. Is there some definition of "most" I'm unfamiliar with?

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-wa ... lush-fund/

Maybe it would help if you were talking about the right foundation? Facts.

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:

Moliere wrote:Her charitable donations seem a little disingenuous when 94% of it goes to her own foundation.

I don't see anything disingenuous about it, provided the foundation spends it's money appropriately.

It's like saying one's charitable donations are disingenuous when spent on charities for one's pet causes rather than spread out among all causes.

They spend most of their money on salaries, travel, fundraising, etc. Very little is money that actually goes to poor people. Although they do supposedly do some administrative stuff that is supposed to help some poor people. Mostly a way to give cushy high paying jobs to Clinton cronies tax free. Plus it is good brand marketing.

eh? It's rated "A" here

12% to overhead, 88% to programs. Is there some definition of "most" I'm unfamiliar with?

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-wa ... lush-fund/

How disingenuous can you be?

Per the Charity Navigator website referenced by the NYPost:

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

Translation: it doesn't fit our ratings system. So we can't rate it.

In accordance with our policy for removing charities from the CN Watchlist, Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from the Watchlist in December 2015 because the charity provided publicly accessible information regarding their amended tax Forms for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. This information, along with the public memorandum submitted addressing the other issues raised in the Watchlist entry, meets our requirements for removal.

Translation: We put it on the watchlist because of questions. Those questions were answered when tax forms and a public document were released.

Is anyone surprised that a forum troll is citing a trolling newspaper?

I guess he couldn't find anything in The Enquirer.

Translation, we got a lot of threats from friends of the Clinton's so we are going to tag out. We don't need Hillary's Hedge fund billionaires throwing daggers at us.

Rip wrote:Translation, we got a lot of threats from friends of the Clinton's so we are going to tag out. We don't need Hillary's Hedge fund billionaires throwing daggers at us.

So when your cites are exposed as incomplete at best, disingenuous at worst, you resort to conspiracy theories. Typical.

I've seen a bunch of stuff on how so little goes to charities from the foundation but it's always in a source that isn't really a source. The best response I can give, is that I'm curious to know the facts but not curious enough to dig deep on my own. As this has been a non news cycle beyond general cites to Hillary's 2015 tax returns for a month or more, I assume the dog don't hunt.

raydude wrote:

Rip wrote:Translation, we got a lot of threats from friends of the Clinton's so we are going to tag out. We don't need Hillary's Hedge fund billionaires throwing daggers at us.

So when your cites are exposed as incomplete at best, disingenuous at worst, you resort to conspiracy theories. Typical.

Nothing I cited was exposed. Other than Charity Navigator criticizing them and then later backing down. But the article I cited was accurate when it was written. I'm not the one who confused the foundations. That said nearly half of the money from the "family" foundation went to the "political kick back" foundation.

What was exposed is the fact that you are talking about the wrong foundation. You are talking about "The Clinton Foundation". That's not what they donated their money too. They donated their money to "The Clinton Family Foundation", which is a separate organization that oversees giving the Clintons' money (they are the only two donors) to other charitable organizations.

Charity Navigator came out with a stupid statistical model to grade charities without paying any attention to what they do. They rated based on one year rather than an average on 3 years, made it statistically impossible to score the highest rating, ignored profiles of comparable charities, etc. It created a huge backlash in the charitable sector--the Clinton Foundation wasn't the only charity unfairly judged. They don't even pretend to judge effectiveness. The CEO quit in 2015 and the system revamped in 2016 -- and it's still controversial.

There is nothing wrong giving money to a Family Foundation. It's a privately funded charity mandated to give at least 5% to public charities every year. They are frequently used by wealthy individuals to manage significant giving since the railway barons. The penalties for screwing them up with insider transactions exceed 200% of the amount involved. Complaining about them is like getting upset with water being wet.

Ratings are inherently cookie-cutter. Nuance is for prose.

Knowing pretty much nothing about how non-profits or charities work, I have no clue what they are doing with their money, whether it's legit or not, or whether I should care or not.

Without doing my homework, I have no opinion one way or another, although since Zarathud does this sort of thing for a living, I tend to accept his word on what rich people do with their money.

Zarathud wrote:Complaining about them is like getting upset with water being wet.

Ryan Lochte Admits Olympic Pool Much Wetter Than He Remembered

GreenGoo wrote:Knowing pretty much nothing about how non-profits or charities work, I have no clue what they are doing with their money, whether it's legit or not, or whether I should care or not.

Rather than Bill and Hillary sitting down and deciding where each and every charitable dollar is spent, they instead write one big check to the "Clinton Family Foundation". That organization then takes that money, and goes out and decides how much to donate and to which charities. It's not complicated. But since it's the Clinton's, toolbags like Rip confuse the issue and post false or irrelevant information.

RunningMn9 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Knowing pretty much nothing about how non-profits or charities work, I have no clue what they are doing with their money, whether it's legit or not, or whether I should care or not.

Rather than Bill and Hillary sitting down and deciding where each and every charitable dollar is spent, they instead write one big check to the "Clinton Family Foundation". That organization then takes that money, and goes out and decides how much to donate and to which charities. It's not complicated. But since it's the Clinton's, toolbags like Rip confuse the issue and post false or irrelevant information.

That's not the part that I don't understand. Presumably there are regulations/rules/laws that must be followed in order to qualify as a charity. I know nothing of what's involved there. And sorry if it came across as a question. All I was doing was professing complete ignorance of this industry.

RunningMn9 wrote:But since it's the Clinton's, toolbags like Rip confuse the issue and post false or irrelevant information.

So "toolbag" is acceptable and "moron" is not?

Moliere wrote:So "toolbag" is acceptable and "moron" is not?

I didn't stop to consider what was acceptable.

RunningMn9 wrote:What was exposed is the fact that you are talking about the wrong foundation. You are talking about "The Clinton Foundation". That's not what they donated their money too. They donated their money to "The Clinton Family Foundation", which is a separate organization that oversees giving the Clintons' money (they are the only two donors) to other charitable organizations.

and the Clinton Family Foundation gave nearly half of their money to the Clinton Foundation.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_ ... _990PF.pdf

$3.767M in grants of which $1.865M went to the other Clinton Foundation.

Rip wrote: $3.767M in grants of which $1.865M went to the other Clinton Foundation.

I get the sense that you're attempting to reveal some sort of malfeasance on the part of those foundations. What are they up to?

There should be a Rip FAQ for people new to the forum.

Wilhelm wrote:

Rip wrote: $3.767M in grants of which $1.865M went to the other Clinton Foundation.

I get the sense that you're attempting to reveal some sort of malfeasance on the part of those foundations. What are they up to?

It's hard to tell, but I think he's giving us numbers because he's impressed with their philanthropy.

And how much did Trump give? Oh wait, he still hasn't released any tax returns!

Welll he raised $5.6 million from his Iowa fundraiser.

Rip wrote:$3.767M in grants of which $1.865M went to the other Clinton Foundation.

Is that what your link claimed?

Rip wrote:Translation, we got a lot of threats from friends of the Clinton's so we are going to tag out. We don't need Hillary's Hedge fund billionaires throwing daggers at us.

Please, Rip, you're becoming a caricature of yourself.

Wilhelm wrote:

Rip wrote: $3.767M in grants of which $1.865M went to the other Clinton Foundation.

I get the sense that you're attempting to reveal some sort of malfeasance on the part of those foundations. What are they up to?

Only if you think pay for play is malfeasance. If it is what you expect from rich and powerful politicians, then I guess not.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/ ... 90f7ea64bd

Trump's campaign is full of losers. Manafort managed to only get 12 million for under the table deals and shady acts with the Kremlin. The Clintons made a hell of a better deal with their shakedowns. NOW who's the better businessman?