TheBlueVue 177 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 show they gave $8.8million to charity and spent $84.7 million on themselves which is virtually 10 times more This foundation is a ruse to peddle influence and to enrich the Clintons. Its hilarious hearing the shrill cries of those who so desperately want to believe these people aren't just money grubbing scumbags Before anyone chimes in with ridicule that its a Fox News report, the info mentioned above was gleaned from the Foundations 2013 tax filings. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/29/trickle-down-experts-question-clinton-foundation-true-charitable-spending/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 It's a slush fund just like whitewater and the rose law firm and cattle futures. These two have been obsessed with money and don't care how they get it. Yet they are a hero to some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Reports are heavy donors are already starting to pull out of giving in 2015 to the Clinton slush fund. Looks like things are starting to unravel for Hillary as soon as she's announced. Pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Why on earth would you support that woman? She's to the left of Obama and that's hard to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. She will make it harder for working folks by making it hard for the job creators to start or expand a business. Liberals have no interest in the working folks except to keep them down and voting democrat by appealing to that mindset that seems to appeal to you for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. She will make it harder for working folks by making it hard for the job creators to start or expand a business. Liberals have no interest in the working folks except to keep them down and voting democrat by appealing to that mindset that seems to appeal to you for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. I love her views when it comes to holding banks and Wall Street accountable (really accountable, not the window dressing accountability they have now) and breaking up these banks and financial firms that are deemed "too big to fail." Outside of that, I just can't get on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 1, 2015 Author Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. I love her views when it comes to holding banks and Wall Street accountable (really accountable, not the window dressing accountability they have now) and breaking up these banks and financial firms that are deemed "too big to fail." Outside of that, I just can't get on board. I think it is naive to actually believe her.I mean anyone who will lie about their heritage to land a tenured job at Harvard Law and Fauxcahontas certainly did that, has serious character issues. What else is she willing to lie about? All the lefties talk about "toppling" the top 1% but guess what? The top 1% ALL support them because they KNOW they don't really mean it and wont do sqaut. I am big proponent of NOT supporting the too big to fail BS so when can agree on that but I dont see her having the fortitude to actually do anything to hurt the people who have so faithfully supported the left. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. I love her views when it comes to holding banks and Wall Street accountable (really accountable, not the window dressing accountability they have now) and breaking up these banks and financial firms that are deemed "too big to fail." Outside of that, I just can't get on board. I think it is naive to actually believe her.I mean anyone who will lie about their heritage to land a tenured job at Harvard Law and Fauxcahontas certainly did that, has serious character issues. What else is she willing to lie about? All the lefties talk about "toppling" the top 1% but guess what? The top 1% ALL support them because they KNOW they don't really mean it and wont do sqaut. I am big proponent of NOT supporting the too big to fail BS so when can agree on that but I dont see her having the fortitude to actually do anything to hurt the people who have so faithfully supported the left. JMO She won't. All those Wall Street lawyers are her friends and big supporters. Those lawyers depend on the investment firms for their position and if the investment firm goes down, they go too. The investment firms will "ask" their lawyers to have a little "talk" with madam Warren. That will end the talk of toppling over these banks and all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. I love her views when it comes to holding banks and Wall Street accountable (really accountable, not the window dressing accountability they have now) and breaking up these banks and financial firms that are deemed "too big to fail." Outside of that, I just can't get on board. I think it is naive to actually believe her.I mean anyone who will lie about their heritage to land a tenured job at Harvard Law and Fauxcahontas certainly did that, has serious character issues. What else is she willing to lie about? All the lefties talk about "toppling" the top 1% but guess what? The top 1% ALL support them because they KNOW they don't really mean it and wont do sqaut. I am big proponent of NOT supporting the too big to fail BS so when can agree on that but I dont see her having the fortitude to actually do anything to hurt the people who have so faithfully supported the left. JMO She won't. All those Wall Street lawyers are her friends and big supporters. Those lawyers depend on the investment firms for their position and if the investment firm goes down, they go too. The investment firms will "ask" their lawyers to have a little "talk" with madam Warren. That will end the talk of toppling over these banks and all of that. Not according to this list of her campaign contributions: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Looks to me like she got a lot of money from lawyers. In any event she isn't going to do anything to hurt them. She certainly isn't going to make it easier on the "little guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Looks to me like she got a lot of money from lawyers. In any event she isn't going to do anything to hurt them. She certainly isn't going to make it easier on the "little guy" Lawyers are big Democratic contributors regardless. What we aren't seeing is "Wall Street" lawyers. That's utter speculation on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. She will make it harder for working folks by making it hard for the job creators to start or expand a business. Liberals have no interest in the working folks except to keep them down and voting democrat by appealing to that mindset that seems to appeal to you for whatever reason. There's that theme again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I suppose healthcare and raising the minimum wage are just liberal tricks? Just keeps them down? If you really want to help the working man, you do things like abolishing the estate tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 The big money donors are backing off of giving money to them. She's not so inevitable as some believe. They aren't sure they'll get their payoff for giving to the Clinton slush fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,362 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Because she ISNT a clone candidate. Right now, you cant name one candidate on the Left or Right NOT OWNED by Wall Street. Obama was the best thing to ever happen to Wall Street. In his first two years, Wall Street turned more profit than in 8 years under Bush43. HRC is already bought by Wall Street. Bush45 is owned by Wall Street. With EW, at least the working folks get an even shot of her hearing us. I love her views when it comes to holding banks and Wall Street accountable (really accountable, not the window dressing accountability they have now) and breaking up these banks and financial firms that are deemed "too big to fail." Outside of that, I just can't get on board. I think it is naive to actually believe her.I mean anyone who will lie about their heritage to land a tenured job at Harvard Law and Fauxcahontas certainly did that, has serious character issues. What else is she willing to lie about? All the lefties talk about "toppling" the top 1% but guess what? The top 1% ALL support them because they KNOW they don't really mean it and wont do sqaut. I am big proponent of NOT supporting the too big to fail BS so when can agree on that but I dont see her having the fortitude to actually do anything to hurt the people who have so faithfully supported the left. JMO That's a BS exaggeration. It didn't land her a job anywhere. And if claiming a dubious heritage is the worst thing she did in her youth, she's better than most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.