Anti-Clinton hit piece in National Journal jumps the shark hard

[King]

Of course the Hillary-fetishists don't like it if their princess is not touched with silk gloves.

In the article, there's nothing more than the plain truth. It shows that Hilldog is a deeply flawed candidate and the Dems would be better off with a fresh Obama-style candidate.

Fresh Obama style candidates are nice but there are none.

[King]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/


LOL....

What an article. The charity watchdog says it doesn't rate it because it's not a charity. (It's not a charity. It's a private foundation.) Then they quote an unrelated person saying it appears to be a slush fund.

[King]

I talked to my father today about this scandal. He's worked as a consultant (during Clinton/Obama admins)/regulator (during Bush I and Bush II admins) on mining and drilling OPs in New Mexico over the years. Obviously, he's a Republican. He hates Hillary and thinks Christie can win (loldad).

However, he said this mining scandal does not make any sense from his experience. The State Department is only brought in an advisory capacity in these situations to provide a pseudo background check on all foreigners in a bid. Generally, it is federal government policy regardless of administration to give the state government decision making power barring some incredible circumstance. But again, it's usually the EPA that steps in to fight the state and not the State Department, and it almost always goes to court in that case.

The worst Hillary could have done here is order an embellished glowing report on the company for Utah to consider. However, reports are not the only factors generally considered. In fact, these kind of lucrative bids usually take so long to be decided that several administrations come and go.

[King]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

[King]

Really, if you are a liberal, this is beyond Hillary or the 2016 election. Progressives need to be engaged on this because they need to protect the Clinton Foundation, which is an important global social institution with projects still active. ACORN was already lost to rumors. You don't want to set a precedent that foundations can be stigmatized so easily. Let the media lead on this and the general public will have as much distrust of charities as they've developed with labor unions. You'll hear about how the 2024 Democratic nominee's "ties to Big Charity are worse than the Clintons!"

[King]

How do I add a picture to my postings like everyone else does?

Put a url of an image into the img brackets:

Code:

[img]https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/forum.gif[/img]

producing...

[King]

How do I add a picture to my postings like everyone else does?

Put a url of an image into the img brackets:

Code:

[img]https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/forum.gif[/img]

producing...

I thought it was automatic. Most people have the same image over and over

Those are signatures. You can enter a signature under the Forum Profile Information tab in your