Now you’ve done it. :mad: Lead story on tomorrow’s Sean Hannity:
Yes and their own programs spend a lot of money on salaries and travel and not much on getting stuff done. If I do a google search on success stories of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the Carter Foundartion I can find quite a lot of good stuff they are doing.
Try the following link:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=clinton+foundation+program+success+stories
Loads of stories about questions about the Clinton foundation, zero stories I can find about what they’ve actually achieved. The Clinton Foundation has collected $2 billion in revenue since it was founded. What have they actually achieved? Name me one program of their’s thats a success story… I’m waiting. Oh and obligatory… Clinton is still better than Trump.
Your cite shows 86% of funds spent on programs. Are you really quibbling over where 3% of the Foundation’s money goes? :dubious::rolleyes:
Did you try looking looking here? (p.s. I got that from the second link on your google search).
Uh… your site says under the “Financial” tab that the Clinton Foundation gave 86% for programs. And separates out 9% it spend on admin costs.
Try this on for size:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
In particular, here are some examples:
[QUOTE=Factcheck.org]
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the Clinton Foundations own website. I’d like to see independent journalists actually confirming and writing about the success stories of the Clinton Foundation, not their own claims. I can easily find many examples of independent journalism doing this for the Gates Foundation or the Carter Center, their work on Malaria and the Guinea Worm has been widely reported.
Why is it that I can easily confirm success stories of other charities and I cannot seem to find any independent confirmation of what the Clinton Foundation, a $2 billion revenue organisation has achieved? I’m asking for non-biased fact checking, eg people on the ground talking to locals in countries where they claim they have helped, and this sort of confirmation is something which we liberals are rather fond of, and yes as a Bernie supporter and an Australian Greens supporter I am a liberal .
First of all, the Clinton Foundation has raised $2B since it’s inception in 1997, whereas the Gates Foundation is sitting at about $44B. Second, the fact that your Google results end up jammed with bad news stories about the Clinton Foundation is a factor of the longstanding and very polarizing political stature of the founders. Maybe getting seeds to African farmers just doesn’t get reported on because it’s frigging boring.
When your own cite contradicts the position you hold is it better to a) update your position to the one the facts support or b) move the goalposts?
Like several others, I look at multiple sources.
I use the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Co) as a primary - modelled on the BBC, and they do a good job of just reporting the facts. Also, I live in Australia. 
I also check the BBC, Washington Post, and New York Times fairly regularly. Al-Jazeera about once a week or so. The Post and the Times tend to mix news and opinion articles on their front page, so keep an eye out for that, but they appear to be pretty well-respected.
Straight-up political news/analysis I’ll go to Politico and FiveThirtyEight. Fact checking is through FactCheck.org and Politifact. And Snopes.
Why aren’t I pissed? The first thing I remember her being accused of included the F-word: feminist. And the accusers had a scandalous smoking gun: she had kept her maiden name after she had married. IIRC, she had even kept it when Bill was Governor of Arkansas. The Horror!
And then she didn’t know that the First Lady’s place was smiling and being a welcoming hostess. Seriously, the fact that she was “allowed” to work in the executive branch was a shocking sign of Extreme Corruption. And Unnaturalness. And Leading America into Immorality.
Everything else just seemed to follow from people first getting their panties in a twist about her not knowing her place. Since I was enjoying seeing her push the boundaries, and nothing I’ve heard thrown at her since seems completely removed from that original pearl-clutching, I tend not to get appalled when the next round of clutching and flinging starts.
Hillary really isn’t a bad candidate. Her terms in congress are very highly rated by groups that gauge things like abortion rights, labor rights, renewable energy, etc. She was a pretty left leaning senator.
This whole liberal demand for purity is going to do way more damage to liberalism than it is going to help. Sanders himself isn’t pure. He has voted against gun control for example.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
There’s a charity watchdog group that reports 88% of the funds went to programs, based on the Foundations tax returns and audits.
Here’s an article from the New York Times talking about Clinton Foundation work in Rwanda:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/us/politics/rwanda-bill-hillary-clinton-foundation.html
Meh. She was born in Chicago. We’ve had cardinals less ethical than her.
She plays better baseball, too.
Well, I’ve never heard it called that before.
Thank you all for the suggestions. 
Ok, first of all your claim about salaries has been utterly refuted. 86% to programs is quite good: the minimum bar is generally around 60%.
The Clinton Foundation has used its unique abilities (i.e. Bill Clinton) to negotiate with drug companies to sell Aids drugs to third world countries at reduced costs. You can see why drug companies would be reluctant to bother with this, given the possibility of profiteering by buying drugs in Mali and re-selling them for a profit in Europe or the US. Their concerns can be addressed, but it required some negotiation.
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/asia/01aidscnd.html
The final deal involved 2 Indian drug manufacturers, a contribution by the Clinton Foundation, a contribution by a European drug buying consortium, and researchers who adapted the drugs for pediatric intake. Western drug manufacturers were reluctant to get into that business, as it’s mostly a third world issue.
ETA: More: “This Is Not Charity” - The Atlantic
Atlantic article: [INDENT][INDENT] “It seems unlikely that anyone but a Clintonesque political celebrity could have persuaded disparate, disorganized AIDS-drug makers and governments to join hands.”
[/INDENT][/INDENT] and [INDENT][INDENT] The foundation is currently using business methods to streamline fertilizer markets in Africa, and it plans to work on bringing down prices of desalination equipment. With the Gates Foundation, it is working on applying its methods to the market for malaria drugs, which is very different from the market for HIV drugs. [/INDENT][/INDENT] and [INDENT][INDENT] . The new breed of philanthropic and social entrepreneurs want to see measurable results, and soon; they embrace business and businesslike methods; they want projects to be sustainable and scalable, capable of living and growing on their own. All of that describes the Clinton- Magaziner ethic to a tee. “That’s amazing,” Greg Dees, of Duke University’s Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, told me when I detailed Clinton’s global-warming plans. “They’re trying to start entire markets in one fell swoop. It sounds like what they’re doing takes this concept to a whole new level.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] The Clinton Foundation has received its share of brickbats. Are their critics racist? No, they simply don’t give a shit about third world development. And once again we have phony criticisms of the Clintons that collapse once subjected to scrutiny. (Not including coremelt in the preceding: he asks reasonable questions that have been answered. Ignorance fighting and all that. )