If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[tengen]

https://t.co/2UYBfPyfv9

Page 28. Clinton foundation donation only 5 Million in 2014. Paid 35 Million salary!

 

As a foundation, aren't they supposed to donate at least 5% of their assets each year? How come the salary is a monstrous 35 M?

 

What do you mean by page 28? I've looked at the 28th page of the document and the page that has "page 28" at the bottom and neither one has the information you are quoting.

 

Page 18 of the notes contains a pretty clear summary of program, management and fund raising expenses. There's nothing in the tax return that I can see that contradicts the notes or reveals extra information.

[tengen]

This is an eye opener on charities & the watchdog organizations.  You read the comments from them and they say 88% goes to program & then you look at the details of program allocation of expenses and it includes all kinds of stuff that doesn't appear program unless your program is to train and administer the foundation (travel, conferences, salaries of officers).  Contrast that to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  They have about 90% in program also but all of the admin expense is not in program but in admin.

 

Packer

 

The Clinton Foundation financial statement clearly separates program expenses from management expenses. I couldn't find anything hidden in the tax return that contradicts the notes (page 18) or, as you characterize them, makes them out to be misleading. If there is, I would appreciate you letting me know as I clearly missed it.

 

It is true that the program expenses contain a large amount for salaries, but that is actually not very different from the Gates Foundation. The reason it looks different superficially is that Gates distributes money to organizations to deliver services while Clinton has its own salaried people. For example, Gates gave $5 million to an outfit called UPD Consulting to provide "management, implementation and technical support to four separate Florida school districts". Clinton pays people directly to do this kind of work.

 

Overall, the Clinton Foundation's management and fund raising expenses are roughly 12% of total expenses (based on 2014 report). It is true that the Gates Foundation has a much lower percentage (roughly 2% in 2016) but you would have to add up the management overhead of all the grantees to do a more apples to apples comparison.

[Packer16]

There appears to be a lot of judgement calls in each situation.  If you look at the Clinton vs. Gates foundations, management is allocated to program for Clinton & G&A for Gates.  I can see a moderate amount of allocation but the % for the Clinton foundation is huge.  This looks like aggressive accounting versus conservative accounting in financial reporting.

 

Packer

[EliG]

There appears to be a lot of judgement calls in each situation.  If you look at the Clinton vs. Gates foundations, management is allocated to program for Clinton & G&A for Gates.  I can see a moderate amount of allocation but the % for the Clinton foundation is huge.  This looks like aggressive accounting versus conservative accounting in financial reporting.

 

Packer

 

Are you accounting for the fact that Clinton Foundation is an operating charity while Gates Foundation is a non-operating one?

 

CF runs its own programs.

 

GF distributes grants to the partners who implement the actual programs.

 

The two models are not directly comparable.

[Cardboard]

The Clintons pay their private jets via their charitable organization and bribery meetings at $5,000 a pop organized by Bill while Trump from his business. And the extreme left on this board try to make us believe that she is more honest and admirable. LOL

 

I will tell you liberalism turned extreme left is a mental disorder.

 

Cardboard

[muscleman]

The Clintons pay their private jets via their charitable organization and bribery meetings at $5,000 a pop organized by Bill while Trump from his business. And the extreme left on this board try to make us believe that she is more honest and admirable. LOL

 

I will tell you liberalism turned extreme left is a mental disorder.

 

Cardboard

 

Just like what I said before, die hard Hillary lovers are defending her like Bruce Berkowitz defending SHLD and JOE.  ;D

 

Or even better, Bill Ackman defending VRX!

Remember what Bill said about VRX when it was $90? There was a lot of smoke, but no fire. Add more! Later when it was $20: There was some fire, but we can fix it.

 

How about this compared to Hillary.

 

Last week:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/25/hillary-clinton-foundation-i-know-theres-lot-smoke/

Hillary Clinton on foundation: ‘I know there’s a lot of smoke but there’s no fire’

 

 

And now:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/30/clinton-foundation-controversy-yes-hillary-where-theres-smoke-there-really-is-fire.html

Clinton Foundation controversy: Yes, Hillary, where there's smoke there really is fire

 

 

Remember, Clinton said she would close the foundation if she got elected. Come on guys. If there is no fire why close it? Even if she closes it, can't she open another foundation, and name it mother-fucker-corruption-heaven foundation?  ;D

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Investor20]

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/25/hillary-clinton-foundation-i-know-theres-lot-smoke/

Hillary Clinton on foundation: ‘I know there’s a lot of smoke but there’s no fire’

 

 

What politifact left out in their analysis (they try to be as soft as they can with Clintons) in below link is that all Bill's speeches that fetched above 500K during Hillary tenure as state secretary are in foreign countries.

 

It is not only that his speeching fees skyrocketed during Hillary State Secretary tenure, they skyrocketed exclusively in foreign countries.

 

That is fire, any way you put it.

 

    2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);

    2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);

    2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

    2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

    2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);

    2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);

    2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);

    2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);

    2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

    2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

    2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer)

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

[rkbabang]

Here's a good interview with Penn Jillette.  His analysis of Trump and  Clinton are spot on 100%.  It is a long interview, but they discuss politics first.  They go on to talk about his weight loss, then Bob Dylan, and other topics after that. 

 

 

 

 

[vox]

The Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-u.s.-president.ece

 

"There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

 

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

 

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.

 

Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. 

 

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers."

[muscleman]

The Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-u.s.-president.ece

 

"There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

 

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

 

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.

 

Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. 

 

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers."

 

So you are really buying into this beautiful press release?

 

When I look at stocks, the first thing I go to are proxy forms and related party transactions.

When I look at Clinton, the first thing to look at are her email scandals, her Benghazi scandals, and her Clinton Foundation.

 

When I look at company press releases and presentations, every crappy company convinces me it is a great investment. Huge potential and severely undervalued. So I no longer look at those.

Non investors may look at the article you sent and buy into it, but I'd be surprised that value investors would do so.

 

 

 

[vox]

The Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-u.s.-president.ece

 

"There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

 

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

 

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.

 

Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. 

 

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers."

 

So you are really buying into this beautiful press release?

 

When I look at stocks, the first thing I go to are proxy forms and related party transactions.

When I look at Clinton, the first thing to look at are her email scandals, her Benghazi scandals, and her Clinton Foundation.

 

When I look at company press releases and presentations, every crappy company convinces me it is a great investment. Huge potential and severely undervalued. So I no longer look at those.

Non investors may look at the article you sent and buy into it, but I'd be surprised that value investors would do so.

 

"Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.

 

Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

 

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

 

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

 

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

 

Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote."

[muscleman]

The Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-u.s.-president.ece

 

"There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

 

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.

 

We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.

 

Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest. 

 

In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers."

 

So you are really buying into this beautiful press release?

 

When I look at stocks, the first thing I go to are proxy forms and related party transactions.

When I look at Clinton, the first thing to look at are her email scandals, her Benghazi scandals, and her Clinton Foundation.

 

When I look at company press releases and presentations, every crappy company convinces me it is a great investment. Huge potential and severely undervalued. So I no longer look at those.

Non investors may look at the article you sent and buy into it, but I'd be surprised that value investors would do so.

 

"Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.

 

Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

 

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

 

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

 

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

 

Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote."

 

 

Lying in front of FBI and lying in front of congress is a big thing. Hillary did it many times. Oh, she told FBI that she doesn't know C means Classified. Do you believe that?

 

No wonder Bill and Hillary become a family. They are just like each other. A liars group.

Bill: "I don't think oral sex is sex."

Hillary: "I don't  think C means classified."

 

Trump is playing on fears. Why not? If Hillary, such a big liar gets elected, we should be really scared. So what's wrong to warn people about this?

 

 

 

[valcont]

Unbelievable:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/politics/donald-trump-pam-bondi.html?_r=0

 

So Trump is accusing Hill for pay to play. But her foundation has never been accused of any corruption, never paid a fine and is not investigated. And here

is a hypocrite who did all of the above, got caught and paid a fine. And somehow he is more trustworthy??

 

No wonder he is not showing his tax returns. I am sure there is something really bad that he is trying to hide.

 

[vox]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-releases-anticipated-documents-heart-hillary-clinton-probe/story?id=41822909

 

"FBI Director James Comey recently said his agency could prove the presence of classified information in the e-mails but found no evidence to indicate that Clinton knew she was sending or receiving classified information — a conclusion reflected in the FBI documents released today.

 

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system,” reads a summary of the FBI’s findings from July. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

 

As Comey said before, three email chains with Clinton included at least one paragraph marked with a “©,” indicating the paragraph contained confidential material.

 

“Clinton stated she did not know what the ‘©’ meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order,” according to the FBI summary.

 

In addition, the paragraphs were not properly marked, lacking a header or footer indicating they contained classified information. But before their interview with Clinton, FBI agents placed the appropriate header on one of the emails to see how she would respond.

 

When confronted with the altered document, Clinton recognized the header and footer as indicating the presence of classified information, but she didn’t connect them to the “©” marking and said she didn’t think the email’s content was in fact classified. She questioned why it was marked as such, according to the FBI summary."

[muscleman]

****Deleted, as a simple joke was taken as insult by extreme leftists.*****

[vox]

Unfortunately, it's not a surprise to see a Donald Trump supporter resort to lodging bizarre insults towards people with whom they disagree rather than engage in issues substantively.

[muscleman]

Unfortunately, it's not a surprise to see a Donald Trump supporter resort to lodging bizarre insults towards people with whom they disagree rather than engage in issues substantively.

 

Well, I don't mean to insult. Just be cool and treat it like a joke. If you are still uncomfortable, I can delete it.  :)

On the other hand, are you sure you "engage in issues substantively" with regard to Hillary's various scandals? You are just taking her lies and the spins from crooked medias who sided with her at face value.

How about this one:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/julian-assange-thousands-hillary-cables-signed-c-classified-yet-told-fbi-didnt-know-meant/

 

I've been reading a book "Stone walled" recently. The current administration's most frequently used trick is to spin lies to cover up the various scandals.

 

How about Hillary's health? It doesn't pass the basic health bar to qualify for a president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUrRaasNHwI

 

 

 

 

[valcont]

Unfortunately, it's not a surprise to see a Donald Trump supporter resort to lodging bizarre insults towards people with whom they disagree rather than engage in issues substantively.

 

Well, I don't mean to insult. Just be cool and treat it like a joke. If you are still uncomfortable, I can delete it.  :)

On the other hand, are you sure you "engage in issues substantively" with regard to Hillary's various scandals? You are just taking her lies and the spins from crooked medias who sided with her at face value.

How about this one:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/julian-assange-thousands-hillary-cables-signed-c-classified-yet-told-fbi-didnt-know-meant/

 

I've been reading a book "Stone walled" recently. The current administration's most frequently used trick is to spin lies to cover up the various scandals.

 

How about Hillary's health? It doesn't pass the basic health bar to qualify for a president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUrRaasNHwI

 

The issue here is the quality of your 'news' sources. I usually ignore Fox, MSNBC, DailyKos, Breitbart, Daily Caller, zero hedge. Bunch of conspiracy theorists sitting in the mom's basement trying to take on the world.

 

 

[valcont]

And I would focus on mental health than the physical. FDR wasn't in the best of health but changed the character of this country. You need someone

who is emotionally stable and mentally qualified. A very high bar for Trump.

[muscleman]

And I would focus on mental health than the physical. FDR wasn't in the best of health but changed the character of this country. You need someone

who is emotionally stable and mentally qualified. A very high bar for Trump.

 

So you really think this woman is emotionally stable?  :o

http://theantimedia.org/former-secret-service-hillary-beat-bill/

 

 

[vox]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578

 

"The author of a new tell-all book about Hillary Clinton could never have seen any of what he claims — he was too low-ranking — say several high-level members of Secret Service presidential details, including the president of the Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service.

 

On Tuesday, AFAUSSS, which is strictly nonpartisan, is set to release a statement blasting Gary Byrne author of “Crisis in Character,” saying members “strongly denounce” the book, which they add has made security harder by eroding the trust between agents and the people they protect.

 

“There is no place for any self-moralizing narratives, particularly those with an underlying motive,” reads the statement from the group’s board of directors, which says Byrne has politics and profit on his mind.

 

...

 

The group’s statement, which POLITICO obtained in advance of its release, very carefully calls Byrne a liar.

 

“One must question the veracity and content of any book which implies that its author played such an integral part of so many [claimed] incidents. Any critique of management by one who has never managed personnel or programs resounds hollow. Additionally, why would an employee wait in excess of ten years after terminating his employment with the Service to make his allegations public?” it reads.

 

The closest contact that Byrne could have had, according to Gilhooly and others, is seeing the president or the first lady pass in the hallway — far from the intimate access he would have needed to catch Bill Clinton in the act or see Hillary Clinton fly into the cursing rages he now writes have convinced him that she doesn’t have the “integrity and temperament” to be president.

 

...

 

Gilhooly, who served primarily in the details of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was also an inspector within the Secret Service from 1995 through 1997. During that time, he said, he was constantly in contact with people in the White House, and often with Hillary Clinton — professionally, as well as through the former first lady writing a letter on his behalf to an insurance company with which he was having a dispute after the death of his wife in 1993.

 

“I never once saw any kind of what I would have considered inappropriate behavior,” Gilhooly said.

 

Gilhooly said he doesn’t remember ever meeting Byrne, or knowing who he was before word of the book started circulating. The former supervisor of the presidential protective division also said Byrne didn’t ring a bell."

[valcont]

Since we are discussing politics in an investment website. I have noticed that it is relatively easy to make money serving the conservative audience.

Look at Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller or a washed up cartoonist like Scott Adams getting huge following for his blog when he turned pro Trump . Heck even an 11 year old boy in Colorado can milk them. As a business owner , you want these customers. Rabidly loyal, oblivious to competitors and impossible to convert. Perfect sheep. Compare that to CNN, MSNBCs , DailyKos etc. I would say they are not half as successful as their conservative brethren because the audience is fickle, expect perfection and too individualized. This pattern is not just limited to the media. You see that in guns,religion ,autos ..

[rkbabang]

Since we are discussing politics in an investment website. I have noticed that it is relatively easy to make money serving the conservative audience.

Look at Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller or a washed up cartoonist like Scott Adams getting huge following for his blog when he turned pro Trump . Heck even an 11 year old boy in Colorado can milk them. As a business owner , you want these customers. Rabidly loyal, oblivious to competitors and impossible to convert. Perfect sheep. Compare that to CNN, MSNBCs , DailyKos etc. I would say they are not half as successful as their conservative brethren because the audience is fickle, expect perfection and too individualized. This pattern is not just limited to the media. You see that in guns,religion ,autos ..

 

Just a correction, Scott Adams is not pro-Trump.  He predicted that Trump will win, but that isn't the same as being pro-Trump.  I predict Hillary is going to win, but I am not pro-Hillary.

 

[Dustin T]

This thread is great for seeing who has checked their brain at the door and bought all the magic beans being sold by either the left or the right. Keep both eyes open my fellow investors, neither side has all the answers. We all know deep down that high caliber people like Buffett, Munger, or Watsa don't chase after political dreams and are wise not too.

 

It's ok to prefer the clown over the corrupt one or vice versa. It's not very wise to believe that one side will usher in Nirvana if it can only get complete control while the other side is the road to the apocalypse. Most people vastly overestimate the power of the president to alter the economy, world politics, and their own lives.

 

[muscleman]

Most people vastly overestimate the power of the president to alter the economy, world politics, and their own lives.

 

But how about Angela Merkel's disastrous refugee policies that changed the lives of so many German people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

 

1200 women were raped publicly on the street. Their lives were forever changed.

And this is just one incident. Smaller crimes happen almost everyday in Germany now.