Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 30, 2024 14:18:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 22:54:57 GMT
I understand what you're saying Missmiss and I do understand the practicalities. I can understand and get behind the idea of "I don't like what my candidate is doing but imo she's still the best of the bunch." I just have a hard time with comments like "well she's not the only one" or "they all do it" as an excuse. So in other words you are ok with some candidates being penalized for their "embellishments" on the campaign trial but not for other candidates. Well all righty. Let me be clear here until such time all candidates are held accountable for what they say I'm ok with Hillary and her embellishments. I may not like them but that is a reality I'm willing to live with. However if the American people crack down on all political candidates about these embellishments then I will expect Hillary to stop her embellishments as well. I do believe your dislike of Hillary is influencing your perspective on this subject in a negative way. |
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 14, 2016 23:27:25 GMT
I completely disagree with this generality. I'll be 56 at the end of this month. I'm a huge Bernie supporter as you all know. My husband is 50 and he is too. I know several adults my age who are. The person we don't trust is Hillary. She has lied over and over and over again. I can't trust a thing she says anymore because she will say anything to get elected. She is a huge disappoint to me. I had high hopes for voting for her when all of this began when she announced her candidacy. But the more I read about and saw her the more I realized what a liar and how untrustworthy she is. It goes beyond how all candidates lie. She's taken money from Monsanto and for me that is HUGE. I will not vote for her because I cannot do that on moral grounds. Not even if she wins the democratic ticket. Before she did that I could, but not now. I will vote, but it will be for an independent probably someone for the Green party on election day if Hillary wins the democratic ticket. I'm going to a dinner get together on Sunday for Bernie supporters in my area. I'll let you know how many people there are my age or if I'm the only one amongst a ton of young people. Although that really will prove nothing. It's only one dinner at a person's house. Debbie in MD. You might want to check your facts in regards to Monsanto/Hilary. Within the last month the rumors in which you base your "morals" are unfounded. www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-sat-monsanto-board/If reading tires you, skip to the end of the article. If reading tires me? No reading doesn't tire me. I read the entire article. I never said a word about Hillary being on the board of Monsanto. What I said was "She's taken money from Monsanto" and according to that article that is a fact. "The Monsanto company is also listed among the entities who donated between 1 million and 5 million to the Clinton Foundation". This is the charity the Clintons set up that is notorious for having so little actually going to charity. Charity Watchdog states on it's website that in 2013 the Clinton Foundation took in 140 million in grants but spent just 9 million on direct aid. So yes, in my mind I consider that taking money from Monsanto. Thank you for providing me with that article to read. It furthers my dislike for Hillary Clinton. I hadn't realized she was on the board of Walmart in the past, or that she is such a supporter of GMO foods and seeds. Two more reasons my values do not align with hers. In selecting who to vote for I consider each candidates stance on issues carefully. Over and over Bernie Sanders stance on the issues match my own vs. Hillary's. Debbie in MD. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 30, 2024 14:18:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 1:46:11 GMT
If reading tires me? No reading doesn't tire me. I read the entire article. I never said a word about Hillary being on the board of Monsanto. What I said was "She's taken money from Monsanto" and according to that article that is a fact. "The Monsanto company is also listed among the entities who donated between 1 million and 5 million to the Clinton Foundation". This is the charity the Clintons set up that is notorious for having so little actually going to charity. Charity Watchdog states on it's website that in 2013 the Clinton Foundation took in 140 million in grants but spent just 9 million on direct aid. So yes, in my mind I consider that taking money from Monsanto. Thank you for providing me with that article to read. It furthers my dislike for Hillary Clinton. I hadn't realized she was on the board of Walmart in the past, or that she is such a supporter of GMO foods and seeds. Two more reasons my values do not align with hers. In selecting who to vote for I consider each candidates stance on issues carefully. Over and over Bernie Sanders stance on the issues match my own vs. Hillary's. Debbie in MD.
So according to Charity Watch the Clinton Foundation took in $140M and spent just $9M. Interesting. So I went to Charity Watches' website. According to the site the foundation has rating of "A". For every $100 they raise it costs $2. Of their funds 88% is for their programs and 12% for expenses. Last year Carly Fiorina claimed that the Foundation only gave 6% of funds for grants. So FactCheck.org checked it out. The 6% number was sort of true. That represented the amount donated by the Foundation to outside charities. The rest of their funding is used for charitable work performed in house. The article goes to say an analysis of The Clinton Foundation by an independent philanthropy watchdog concluded that about 89% of its funding went to charity. Which pretty matches the 88% from Charity Watch. I think you may be a little wrong in your assessment of the Clinton Foundation. As to your intense dislike for Monsanto. I'm not a fan of GMO food. Right now we have a choice. But think about a future where there are more people then land available that can be used to grow the crops needed to support all these people. It's the work that Monsanto and other biotech companies are doing today that will feed all the people when land for growing crops and raising farm animals diminish. And as as far as the Foundation taking donations from Monsanto. Funny thing I read and saw on their website GreenPeace took some nice donations from the Rockefeller Foundation. You know where they got a big chunk of their money don't you? Standard Oil! And yet I see Bernie is overlooking the fact that GreenPeace has/is receiving donations/grants from a Foundation who's money is from fossil fuels and working with then anyway on climate change. I mean if Bernie was such a purist he would have nothing to do with GreenPeace because of where GreenPeace got some of their funding. My point is nothing is as black and white as some would like to make it. |
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 15, 2016 2:45:44 GMT
Papercraftadvocate-Show me exactly where it says on the Charity Watch website that the Clinton Foundation has a rating of A. Because I was there earlier this evening at that is NOT TRUE. The only place where it says that is on your link which is a site called factcheck.org. I think you are the one who is wrong about your assessment regarding the Clinton Foundation.
You say think about the future when there are more people to support to feed. This is the very reason I chose to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I do NOT believe GMO foods or seeds are the answer to our future. I believe they are a destructive and damaging to our health and to the earth. I believe investing money to fight climate change is extremely important and I don't believe or trust Hillary Clinton when she says she will do this.
Debbie in MD.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 30, 2024 14:18:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 19:20:36 GMT
Papercraftadvocate-Show me exactly where it says on the Charity Watch website that the Clinton Foundation has a rating of A. Because I was there earlier this evening at that is NOT TRUE. The only place where it says that is on your link which is a site called factcheck.org. I think you are the one who is wrong about your assessment regarding the Clinton Foundation. You say think about the future when there are more people to support to feed. This is the very reason I chose to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I do NOT believe GMO foods or seeds are the answer to our future. I believe they are a destructive and damaging to our health and to the earth. I believe investing money to fight climate change is extremely important and I don't believe or trust Hillary Clinton when she says she will do this. Debbie in MD.  Just another example of how the Clintons do everything backwards, sideways and upside down, possibly in hopes nobody looks too closely at what they're actually doing?: |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 30, 2024 14:18:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2016 22:17:59 GMT
Papercraftadvocate-Show me exactly where it says on the Charity Watch website that the Clinton Foundation has a rating of A. Because I was there earlier this evening at that is NOT TRUE. The only place where it says that is on your link which is a site called factcheck.org. I think you are the one who is wrong about your assessment regarding the Clinton Foundation. You say think about the future when there are more people to support to feed. This is the very reason I chose to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I do NOT believe GMO foods or seeds are the answer to our future. I believe they are a destructive and damaging to our health and to the earth. I believe investing money to fight climate change is extremely important and I don't believe or trust Hillary Clinton when she says she will do this. Debbie in MD. I went back to the Charity Watch website twice this morning, clicked on the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and it took me to a recap of the Foundation. It still is showing a rating of "A" and still showing it cost $2 for every $100 of money raised. And it's still showing a pie chart that 88% of the monies us used for their charity in house and outside charities. Which still leaves 12% for overhead. I have no idea what you looked at but I can only tell you what I found looking three different times. Now there is more information available but to access it one has to be a member. I'm not and I'm not going to join. However if this additional member only information is as bad as you are saying it is then I can't see the site giving the foundation an "A" rating. Based on your original comments when I saw the "A" rating I wondered if it meant what "A" is generally accepted to mean. So I checked the ratings of other known to me charities. They all had A, A-, A+. So either A means good or there are an awful lot of well known charities that are as bad as you feel the Clinton Foundation is. Anyway I'm done looking. I think you are wrong in your assessment of the Clinton Foundation based on what I found on the Charity Watch site and what FactCheck had to say. As to Clinate Change. I'm all for it. However when the population grows there becomes less agriculture land available. My neck of the woods was known for chickens and apples. When I was in high school the guys made money cleaning out chicken sheds. Today they are all but gone and in their places are houses. My parents are buried in a cemetery that was once an apple orchard. When we buried my mom 20 years ago the cemetery was in the country. Today there are homes and schools around the cemetery that weren't there 20 years ago. That is what happens when the population grows. Agricultural land makes way for the population. Fixing the problems associated with climate change will not create more land. What land we have today is what land we will have tomorrow. Which means the land available must be used in an efficient manner for all. So as much as you hate Monsanto. as I said yesterday ,what they and other biotech companies are working on today may be the key to feeding future generations. Again I'm not a fan of GMO foods and I get to choose if I want to eat GMO enhanced food or not. Future generations may not because based on circumstances that may be their only option. I admire your staunch support for Bernie. I may not agree with your assessment of Hillary but you believe what you believe. At one time I liked old Bernie. I agreed with a lot he had to say. This run for president is turning Bernie into someone I don't like much. So I guess I have the same issues with Bernie you have with Hillary. |
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 15, 2016 23:27:33 GMT
Papercraftadvocate-Show me exactly where it says on the Charity Watch website that the Clinton Foundation has a rating of A. Because I was there earlier this evening at that is NOT TRUE. The only place where it says that is on your link which is a site called factcheck.org. I think you are the one who is wrong about your assessment regarding the Clinton Foundation. You say think about the future when there are more people to support to feed. This is the very reason I chose to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I do NOT believe GMO foods or seeds are the answer to our future. I believe they are a destructive and damaging to our health and to the earth. I believe investing money to fight climate change is extremely important and I don't believe or trust Hillary Clinton when she says she will do this. Debbie in MD. I went back to the Charity Watch website twice this morning, clicked on the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and it took me to a recap of the Foundation. It still is showing a rating of "A" and still showing it cost $2 for every $100 of money raised. And it's still showing a pie chart that 88% of the monies us used for their charity in house and outside charities. Which still leaves 12% for overhead. I have no idea what you looked at but I can only tell you what I found looking three different times. Now there is more information available but to access it one has to be a member. I'm not and I'm not going to join. However if this additional member only information is as bad as you are saying it is then I can't see the site giving the foundation an "A" rating. Based on your original comments when I saw the "A" rating I wondered if it meant what "A" is generally accepted to mean. So I checked the ratings of other known to me charities. They all had A, A-, A+. So either A means good or there are an awful lot of well known charities that are as bad as you feel the Clinton Foundation is. Anyway I'm done looking. I think you are wrong in your assessment of the Clinton Foundation based on what I found on the Charity Watch site and what FactCheck had to say. As to Clinate Change. I'm all for it. However when the population grows there becomes less agriculture land available. My neck of the woods was known for chickens and apples. When I was in high school the guys made money cleaning out chicken sheds. Today they are all but gone and in their places are houses. My parents are buried in a cemetery that was once an apple orchard. When we buried my mom 20 years ago the cemetery was in the country. Today there are homes and schools around the cemetery that weren't there 20 years ago. That is what happens when the population grows. Agricultural land makes way for the population. Fixing the problems associated with climate change will not create more land. What land we have today is what land we will have tomorrow. Which means the land available must be used in an efficient manner for all. So as much as you hate Monsanto. as I said yesterday ,what they and other biotech companies are working on today may be the key to feeding future generations. Again I'm not a fan of GMO foods and I get to choose if I want to eat GMO enhanced food or not. Future generations may not because based on circumstances that may be their only option. I admire your staunch support for Bernie. I may not agree with your assessment of Hillary but you believe what you believe. At one time I liked old Bernie. I agreed with a lot he had to say. This run for president is turning Bernie into someone I don't like much. So I guess I have the same issues with Bernie you have with Hillary. It looks like there are two websites with similar sounding names and I was getting confused. My mistake. I was looking at Charity Watchdog. You were looking at Charity Watch. I did go and look at Charity Watch and you are right, they do give the Clinton Foundation an A, but from my research they are the only ones. Charity Watchdog certainly does not, and neither does Charity Navigator. Both of these sites have put the Clinton Foundation on their "watch list" and further more there was this article at nypost.com/2016/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund-/ I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You say you get to choose if you want to eat GMO enhanced food or not. How is that possible since GMO labeling is still not legal in this country? How can you tell what you choose to buy is GMO or not? That is my whole point. I've been signing petitions to get GMO labeling laws passed in this country for over two years now. 64 countries already label GMO foods. Whether you believe in them or not, I believe we as consumers have the right to know what we are eating. Our country does not have a labeling law. I also believe by voting for Bernie we have a better chance of getting this law passed than by voting for Hillary. I do care very much about the future of the Earth and future generations. I'm a tree hugger and was fighting pollution back in the 1970's. I personally do not believe GMO's are the answer to food for future generations. Taking better care of the planet than we have is the answer. There is so much we can do that we aren't doing. Debbie in MD. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 30, 2024 14:18:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 5:40:03 GMT
I went back to the Charity Watch website twice this morning, clicked on the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and it took me to a recap of the Foundation. It still is showing a rating of "A" and still showing it cost $2 for every $100 of money raised. And it's still showing a pie chart that 88% of the monies us used for their charity in house and outside charities. Which still leaves 12% for overhead. I have no idea what you looked at but I can only tell you what I found looking three different times. Now there is more information available but to access it one has to be a member. I'm not and I'm not going to join. However if this additional member only information is as bad as you are saying it is then I can't see the site giving the foundation an "A" rating. Based on your original comments when I saw the "A" rating I wondered if it meant what "A" is generally accepted to mean. So I checked the ratings of other known to me charities. They all had A, A-, A+. So either A means good or there are an awful lot of well known charities that are as bad as you feel the Clinton Foundation is. Anyway I'm done looking. I think you are wrong in your assessment of the Clinton Foundation based on what I found on the Charity Watch site and what FactCheck had to say. As to Clinate Change. I'm all for it. However when the population grows there becomes less agriculture land available. My neck of the woods was known for chickens and apples. When I was in high school the guys made money cleaning out chicken sheds. Today they are all but gone and in their places are houses. My parents are buried in a cemetery that was once an apple orchard. When we buried my mom 20 years ago the cemetery was in the country. Today there are homes and schools around the cemetery that weren't there 20 years ago. That is what happens when the population grows. Agricultural land makes way for the population. Fixing the problems associated with climate change will not create more land. What land we have today is what land we will have tomorrow. Which means the land available must be used in an efficient manner for all. So as much as you hate Monsanto. as I said yesterday ,what they and other biotech companies are working on today may be the key to feeding future generations. Again I'm not a fan of GMO foods and I get to choose if I want to eat GMO enhanced food or not. Future generations may not because based on circumstances that may be their only option. I admire your staunch support for Bernie. I may not agree with your assessment of Hillary but you believe what you believe. At one time I liked old Bernie. I agreed with a lot he had to say. This run for president is turning Bernie into someone I don't like much. So I guess I have the same issues with Bernie you have with Hillary. It looks like there are two websites with similar sounding names and I was getting confused. My mistake. I was looking at Charity Watchdog. You were looking at Charity Watch. I did go and look at Charity Watch and you are right, they do give the Clinton Foundation an A, but from my research they are the only ones. Charity Watchdog certainly does not, and neither does Charity Navigator. Both of these sites have put the Clinton Foundation on their "watch list" and further more there was this article at nypost.com/2016/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund-/ I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You say you get to choose if you want to eat GMO enhanced food or not. How is that possible since GMO labeling is still not legal in this country? How can you tell what you choose to buy is GMO or not? That is my whole point. I've been signing petitions to get GMO labeling laws passed in this country for over two years now. 64 countries already label GMO foods. Whether you believe in them or not, I believe we as consumers have the right to know what we are eating. Our country does not have a labeling law. I also believe by voting for Bernie we have a better chance of getting this law passed than by voting for Hillary. I do care very much about the future of the Earth and future generations. I'm a tree hugger and was fighting pollution back in the 1970's. I personally do not believe GMO's are the answer to food for future generations. Taking better care of the planet than we have is the answer. There is so much we can do that we aren't doing. Debbie in MD. I thought you would like to know that Charity Navigator removed The Clinton Foundation from the watch list in December 2015. I couldn't find Charity Watchdog so I can't check for myself the Foundation is on the watchlist. Not that I doubt you but I like to check these things out for myself. I like to look at the entire story like the reason the Foundation was on Charity Navigator's watchlist. |
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Apr 17, 2016 11:28:04 GMT
the social safety net is way underfunded...when my adult disabled child gets ssdi....in the process now..the amount provided is not enough to rent a shared room in a apt.. let alone utilities, food, and anything else. there is very limited low income housing..if I couldn't supplement from my savings, I don't think my child will be able to eat. not right. My disabled BIL lives with us, and I feel if the government did something about the fraud and waste in SSDI and SSI those that truly need it would be able to get more. I have no issues helping those that need but it frosts my butt to pay those people that could and should be doing more to take care of themselves. My SIL is one of those people, she should be working , volunteering something, if you add all her benefits up she brings home more than my DH (who own his own business) yet still will call and ask him for money (he says no) |
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876 
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Apr 17, 2016 15:06:16 GMT
|
|
My original pea date was November 1999 and my number was 1803