*2016 US Presidential Elections* - Candidates, Statistics, Campaign Timelines, Debates

Luxman

#TRE45ON
Jesus H Christ. Did you even look at the link I provided? I'm talking/typing to a wall here..

Reread my post, "most charities are scams...", that's probably why less liberals give to them.
Other than knowing that most charities are scams, maybe it's because liberals have less money, most rich people are republicans, so maybe the amounts are skewed by all the money/bribes rich people give each other and pass off as charitable donations.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasa...milies-republicans-or-democrats/#929fbf7717ec
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
I would really appreciate you guys trying to take it bak on topic. We all realize how much part of you despise other parts of you and vice versa, but that does not help the discussion. And you won't win anybody over by insulting others.

I believe we are in a stretch of time where just polls and some news stories indicate where we stand regarding the outcome of this election. The deabates will show much more, and I think you agree that the tone and the way both (or maybe we get more than the two main parties into the debates?) candidates go at it.
 
Reread my post, "most charities are scams...", that's probably why less liberals give to them.
Other than knowing that most charities are scams, maybe it's because liberals have less money, most rich people are republicans, so maybe the amounts are skewed by all the money/bribes rich people give each other and pass off as charitable donations.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasa...milies-republicans-or-democrats/#929fbf7717ec


Most charities are scams...with all due respect that's rubbish - you don't know what charities they're giving to, but even if that's the case, that doesn't negate the fact that republicans give more. Not only do they donate (financially) more, they donate their time more as well. The link I provided is NY Times, from a flaming liberal.


Furthermore, according to Mayhem all republicans are inbred, redneck klansmen who have little or no education? What gives? :funnyshit:
 

Luxman

#TRE45ON
Most charities are scams...with all due respect that's rubbish - you don't know what charities they're giving to, but even if that's the case, that doesn't negate the fact that republicans give more. Not only do they donate (financially) more, they donate their time more as well. The link I provided is NY Times, from a flaming liberal.


Furthermore, according to Mayhem all republicans are inbred, redneck klansmen who have little or no education? What gives? :funnyshit:

You can't stereotype all democrats or republicans. I have friends who are very conservative and others who are very liberal, and I get along fine with most of them. I try to keep an open mind and not let mostly corrupt politics or religion tell me what to think or believe.
Most charities are scams, google it if you don't believe me.
Most of them use most of the money they get for "administration costs", etc...
I wasn't disagreeing that republicans give more to charity... the rest is in my posts above.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
Side effect of charities:

By channeling your taxable money through a specific charity, you take away the money supposed o go to the country and that makes it miss there. Espercially, if you make it about some religious charity.

Small income earners pay for the country, big money pay for special interest.

Something else that looks really generous, but is just another way to steal from the country.

Nothing noble there.
 
Side effect of charities:

By channeling your taxable money through a specific charity, you take away the money supposed o go to the country and that makes it miss there. Espercially, if you make it about some religious charity.

Small income earners pay for the country, big money pay for special interest.

Something else that looks really generous, but is just another way to steal from the country.

Nothing noble there.

I didn't say it, a very liberal Nicholas Kristof said liberals are tightwads. Deal with it.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
A great reason to not vote for Clinton. Published on the front page of Sunday's Houston Chronicle:

Ties to Charity Bedevil Clinton

Foreign donors raise obstacles for candidacy

By Amy Chozick and Steve Eder NEW YORK TIMES

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million.
For years the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation thrived largely on the generosity of foreign donors and individuals who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the global charity. But now, as Hillary Clinton seeks the White House, the funding of the sprawling philanthropy has become an Achilles’ heel for her campaign and, if she is victorious, potentially her administration as well.
With Clinton facing accusations of favoritism toward Clinton Foundation donors during her time as secretary of state, former President Bill Clinton told foundation employees Thursday that the organization would no longer accept foreign or corporate donations should Hillary Clinton win in November.
But while the move could avoid the awkwardness of Bill Clinton jetting around the world asking for money while his wife is president, it did not resolve a more pressing question: how her administration would handle longtime donors seeking help from the United States, or whose interests might conflict with the country’s own.
The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State Department — before, during and after Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary — criticized for their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.
Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Donations are typically reported in broad ranges.) At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, which was co-founded by a Saudi prince.
Saudi Arabia also presents Washington with a complex diplomatic relationship full of strain. The kingdom is viewed as a bulwark to deter Iranian adventurism across the region and has been a partner in the fight against terrorism across the Persian Gulf and wider Middle East.
At the same time, though, U.S. officials have long worried about Saudi Arabia’s suspected role in promoting ahard-line strain of Islam, which has some adherents who have been linked to violence. Saudi officials deny any links to terrorism groups, but critics point to Saudi charities that fund organizations suspected of ties to militant cells.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said the Clintons had always been careful about donors. “The policies that governed the foundation’s activities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state already went far beyond legal requirements,” he said in a statement, “and yet the foundation submitted to even more rigorous standards when Clinton declared her candidacy for president, and is pledging to go even further if she wins.”

Trump on the attack

Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, could face his own complications if he becomes president, with investments abroad and hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate debt — financial positions that could be affected by moves he makes in the White House. And on Friday, Paul Manafort resigned as chairman of the Trump campaign, in part because of reports about his lucrative consulting work on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians.
Still, Trump has seized on emails released over the past several weeks from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, in which a handful of donors are mentioned. He has attacked her over an email chain that showed Douglas Band, an adviser to Bill Clinton, seeking to arrange a meeting between a senior U.S. government official and Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-Nigerian real estate developer who donated between $1 million and $5 million. Chagoury explained through a spokesman that he had simply wanted to provide insights on elections in Lebanon.
Some emails and other records described donors seeking, and in some cases, obtaining meetings with State Department officials. None showed Hillary Clinton making decisions in favor of any contributors, but her allies fear that additional emails might come out and provide more fodder for Trump.
Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, said the decision to forgo corporate and foreign money had nothing to do with the emails. The foundation will continue to raise money from U.S. individuals and charities.
“The only factor is that we remove the perception problems, if she wins the presidency,” he said, “and make sure that programs can continue in some form for people who are being helped.”
Minassian said ending foreign fundraising before other sources of money could be found, and without knowing who will win the election, could needlessly gut programs that help provide, for instance, HIV medication to children in Africa.
Begun in 1997, the foundation has raised about $2 billion and is overseen by a board that includes Bill Clinton and the couple’s daughter, Chelsea. Hillary Clinton joined when she left the State Department and stepped down in 2015 before beginning her campaign . Its work covers 180 countries, helping fund more than 3,500 projects.
Having a former president at the helm proved particularly productive, with foreign leaders and businesspeople opening their doors — and their wallets — to the preternaturally sociable Bill Clinton.
Among the charity’s accomplishments: Its Clinton Health Access Initiative — which is run by Ira Magaziner, who was a White House aide involved in Hillary Clinton’s failed effort to overhaul the health care system in her husband’s first term —renegotiated the cost of HIV drugs to make them accessible to 11.5 million people. The foundation helped bring healthier meals to more than 31,000 schools in the United States, and it has helped 105,000 farmers in East Africa increase their yields, according to the foundation’s tally.

Domestic focus

In December 2008, shortly before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton released a list of more than 200,000 donors to defuse speculation about conflicts.
Soon after, Hillary Clinton agreed to keep foundation matters separate from official business, including a pledge to “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon” the foundation without a waiver. The Obama White House had particularly disliked the gatherings of world leaders, academics and business people, called the Clinton Global Initiative, that the foundation was holding overseas. The foundation limited the conferences to domestic locations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
One of the attendees at these conferences speaks to the stickiness of some donor relationships.
Victor Pinchuk, a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Bill Clinton’s star-studded 65th birthday celebration.
Even if Bill Clinton steps down, there could be complications about a president’s name being affixed to an international foundation. And Chelsea Clinton, who is its vice chairwoman, would continue her leadership role.
“It is very difficult to see how the organization called the Clinton Foundation can continue to exist during a Clinton presidency without that posing all sorts of consequences,” said John Wonderlich, interim executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group in Washington. “What they announced only addresses the most egregious potential conflicts.”
Considering the scale and scope of the foundation, Wonderlich said it was easy to “name a hundred different types of conflicts.”
The reality is, he added, “there are no recusals when you are president.”
Hillary Clinton joined the Clinton Foundation when she left the State Department and stepped down in 2015 before beginning her presidential campaign.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
A great reason to not vote for Trump. Published on the front page of Sunday's Houston Chronicle:

Trump’s Empire a Maze of Debts

GOP nominee’s fortune built on financial backers

By Susanne Craig NEW YORK TIMES


On the campaign trail, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has sold himself as a businessman who has made billions of dollars and is beholden to no one.
But an investigation by the New York Times into the financial maze of Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount than can be gleaned from public filings he has made as part of his bid for the White House. The Times’ inquiry also found Trump’s fortunes depend deeply on a wide array of financial backers, including one he has cited in attacks during his campaign.
For example, an office building on Avenue of the Americas in New York, of which Trump is part owner, carries a $950 million loan. Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States; and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, after it paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.
As president, Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his financial empire.
Yet the Times’ examination underscored how much of Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.
Early in the campaign, Trump submitted a federal financial disclosure form. It said his businesses owed at least $315 million to a relatively small group of lenders and listed ties to more than 500 limited liability companies.
Though he answered the questions, the form appears to have been designed for candidates with simpler finances than his and did not require disclosure of portions of his business activities.

Outstanding loans

Beyond finding that companies owned by Trump had debts of at least $650 million, the Times discovered that a substantial portion of his wealth is tied up in three passive partnerships that owe an additional $2 billion to a string of lenders, including those that hold the loan on the Avenue of the Americas building. If those loans were to go into default, Trump might not be held personally liable, but the value of his investments would sink.
Richard Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota and, from 2005 to 2007, the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, compared Trump to Henry Paulson Jr., a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs whom Bush appointed Treasury secretary.
Painter advised Paulson on his decision to sell his Goldman Sachs shares, saying it was clear that Paulson could not simply have placed that stock in a trust and pretended it did not exist.
If Trump were to use a blind trust, the professor said, it would be “like putting a gold watch in a box and pretending you don’t know it is in there.”
Trump once said on CNN: “I am the king of debt. I love debt.” But in his career, debt has sometimes gotten the better of him, leading to at least four business bankruptcies.
But he is quick to stress that these days, his companies have little debt.
Trump indicated in the financial disclosure form that he was worth at least $1.5 billion and has said publicly that the figure is actually greater than $10 billion. Recent estimates by Forbes and Fortune magazines and Bloomberg have put his worth at less than $5 billion.
To gain a better understanding of Trump’s holdings and debt, the Times engaged RedVision Systems, anational property information firm, to search publicly available data on more than 30 properties in the United States.
That Trump seems to have so much less debt on his disclosure form than what the Times found is not his fault, but rather a function of what the form asks candidates to list and how.
Unique circumstances
The form, released by the Federal Election Commission, asks that candidates list assets and debts not in precise numbers, but in ranges that top out at $50 million — appropriate for most candidates, but not for Trump. Through its examination, the Times discerned the amount of debt taken out on each property and its ownership structure.
At 40 Wall Street in New York, a limited liability company, or LLC, controlled by Trump holds the ground lease — the lease for the land on which the building stands. In 2015, Trump borrowed $160 million from Ladder Capital, a small New York firm, using that long-term lease as collateral. On his financial disclosure form, that debt is listed as valued at more than $50 million.

No personal debt

Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, said Trump could have left the liability section on the form blank because federal law requires that presidential candidates disclose personal liabilities, not corporate debt.
Trump, he said, has no personal debt.
“We overdisclosed,” Weisselberg said, explaining that it was decided that when a Trump company owned 100 percent of a property, all of the associated debt would be disclosed, something that he said went beyond what the law required.
For properties where a Trump company owned less than 100 percent of a building, Weisselberg said, those debts were not disclosed.
Trump, for example, has a 50 percent stake in the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. In 2010, the company that owns the hotel refinanced a $190 million loan, according to Real Capital Analytics, a commercial real estate data and analytics firm.
Weisselberg said a Trump entity was responsible for half the debt, and all but $6.4 million of the loan had been paid off.
The Times found three other instances in which Trump had an ownership interest in a building but did not disclose the debt associated with it. In all three cases, Trump had passive investments in limited liability companies that had borrowed significant amounts of money.
One of these investments involves an office tower at 1290 Avenue of Americas. In a typically complex deal, loan documents show that four lenders — German American Capital, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank; UBS Real Estate Securities; Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company; and Bank of China — agreed in November 2012 to lend $950 million to the three companies that own the building. Those companies, obscurely named HWA 1290 III LLC, HWA 1290 IV LLC and HWA 1290 V LLC, are owned by three other companies in which Trump has stakes.
Ultimately, through his investments, Trump is a 30 percent owner of the building, records show. Vornado Realty Trust owns the other 70 percent and is the controlling partner.
On a smaller scale, Trump also has a 4 percent partnership interest in a company that has an interest in a large Brooklyn housing complex and owes roughly $410 million to Wells Fargo, according to Bloomberg data.
The full terms of Trump’s limited partnerships are not known. The current value of the loans connected to them is roughly $1.95 billion, according to various public documents.

Vulnerable position

Weisselberg said that neither Trump nor the company was responsible for the debt associated with the limited partnerships. Trump, Weisselberg added, was liable for a “small percentage of the corporate debt” listed on the federal filing but would not elaborate.
Despite Trump’s holdings, Weisselberg said, the candidate should not be held to the same standards that might apply to the heads of companies in highly regulated industries.
Others disagree. Trump’s opaque portfolio of business ties make him potentially vulnerable to the demands of banks and to businesspeople in the United States and abroad, said Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer.
“The success of his empire depends on an ability to get credit, to get loans extended to his business entities,” Painter said. “And we simply don’t know a lot about his financial dealings, here or around the world.”
An investigation into the real estate holdings of Donald Trump found complex partnerships and debts of at least $650 million — double the amount to be gleaned from campaign filings he has made.
 

ApolloBalboa

Was King of the Board for a Day
I just spent the weekend reading Trump's tax plan (or rather, the analysis/cliff notes version). It's almost 9 months old, but for anybody who wants to avoid speaking vaguely about how much they love or hate it, I think it behooves you to at least skim it. I'll do the same with Clinton's when I can find it online.
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
I didn't say it, a very liberal Nicholas Kristof said liberals are tightwads. Deal with it.

It's okay if you say it.

The charity system remains what it is. Channeling money you would have to give up anyway through organisations that take from the common good.

Back on topic. A fresh batch of 15.000 emails that the FBI got their hands on and that are to be released in the near future will add harm to her campaign. So it's not like only Trump keeps getting in more trouble.

It gets worse and worse for BOTH main parties, which can only play ointo the hands of third and fourth party candodates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/u...new-emails-release-state-department.html?_r=0
 
It's okay if you say it.

The charity system remains what it is. Channeling money you would have to give up anyway through organisations that take from the common good.

Back on topic. A fresh batch of 15.000 emails that the FBI got their hands on and that are to be released in the near future will add harm to her campaign. So it's not like only Trump keeps getting in more trouble.

It gets worse and worse for BOTH main parties, which can only play ointo the hands of third and fourth party candodates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/u...new-emails-release-state-department.html?_r=0



Again, you guys are the ones making the assertion that flat out, bar none, all donations are done so not altruistically but because they're greedy or because they have ulterior motives.


What a fucking load of absolute bollocks.
 
I forgot to add from last post (from same link)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
 

Former Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice has no recollection of a conversation at a 2009 dinner party where Hillary Clinton reportedly claims that Gen. Colin Powell advised her to use a personal email account.
1) It's not as if Condi Rice is neutral.
2) The fact the she doesn't remembers something doesn't mean it did not happen. She doesn't say it did nit happened, she says she doesn't remebers it happened.

The popular sports pundit tweeted, “Same people ripping Lochte for ‘lying’ about being robbed are also voting for Hillary Clinton for president without a trace of irony.”
In what world does the opinion of a sport pundit matters about politics ? When you're about to place your bet for the Superbowl, do you care about Ann Coulter's opinion ?


The Abedin stuff is more serious, in the wrong hand, it could have caused Hillary's murder. If Hillary's elected and Abedin keeps up with being so unreliable, President Hillary could get killed. Nut wouldn't guys celebrate the murder of crooked Hillary. May "2nd amendement people" are not the only people who could stop Hillary from overturning the 2nd Amendement, maybe Abedin and radical muslim could do it as well...
 

GodsEmbryo

Closed Account
Most charities are scams...

Republicans give more.

:1orglaugh Reminds me of a heated debate between two people I once watched about the colour scheme of a 10€ bill. One argued it was red, the other one that it was brown. They almost got into a fight. Turned out they were both right: it has a red colour scheme on one side, and a brownish colour scheme on the other.

Both of you are right. Aditional info on request, I'm not gonna clutter this thread anymore then it already is. Hope that settles it.

I just spent the weekend reading Trump's tax plan (or rather, the analysis/cliff notes version). It's almost 9 months old, but for anybody who wants to avoid speaking vaguely about how much they love or hate it, I think it behooves you to at least skim it. I'll do the same with Clinton's when I can find it online.

Have some online links per chance from both?
 

ApolloBalboa

Was King of the Board for a Day

GodsEmbryo

Closed Account

ApolloBalboa

Was King of the Board for a Day

Even O'Reilly cannot beleive what he is hearing. Even him thinks Trump goes way too far and hid advocating for something illegal and unconstitutional...
 
Top