Ivanka receives pledge of $100 million for proposed women's fund from Saudis and UAE

[Sapidus]

I'm sure Sappy and Chris will take note and retract.

Or..

That article says nothing we didn't know. If you weren't so up Trump's butt you would see that it is the exact same scenario as the Clinton foundation which is why it's hypocritical to denounce one and not the other.

 

[Sapidus]

So what's your problem with Trump doing it??

I think your point is, that you have no issue with Trump doing it.. is that a correct statement??

BUT alas, we already know how corrupt the Clinton Foundation was/ is.. so you should still have a problem with what they did.

I have no problem with either one doing it. The money isn't going in their pockets.

The problem I have is Trump's hypocritical tweet that I quoted and Trump supporters blood lust for Hillary and the Clinton foundation while they idolize Ivanka and Trunp for doing the same thing.

Boy are you dense.

 

[Gilligan]

If you weren't so up Trump's butt.

Except that I'm not and never have been one of Trump's supporters. Too bad, huh? Your narratives collapse faster than Hillary on a walk to her limo.

 

[Gilligan]

That article says nothing we didn't know.

Yes it does. It says the money will go to a World Bank fund. Not Ivanka..not a privately managed slush fund..er..foundation run by and for the Clintons.

See how that works?

 

[SamSpade]

Boy are you dense.

Dude, don't double down on this hand. It's a loser.

 

[Midnightrider]

Except that I'm not and never have been one of Trump's supporters. Too bad, huh? Your narratives collapse faster than Hillary on a walk to her limo.

well then who did you vote for?

 

[Gilligan]

well then who did you vote for?

Anyone but Hillary.

 

[Lurk]

Anyone but Hillary.

There were 27 candidates for President on the Maryland ballot after all. Midnight has trouble understanding "this is what really happened" news..

 

[Gilligan]

There were 27 candidates for President on the Maryland ballot after all. Midnight has trouble understanding "this is what really happened" news..

Bless his lil' heart.

 

[SamSpade]

Anyone but Hillary.

Me too. And I just talked a bit with one of my very non-political friends - who said he only voted for Trump because he was the only one on the ballot likely to beat Hillary.
Had the Dems run someone else, he might have voted for THAT person.

 

[Hijinx]

Your S/N Ratio is off the charts ....... did you have a POINT to Make ?


Ah Skippy, you must LOVE being WRONG


The Media Spreads Fake News About Ivanka Trump

This weekend, the Wall Street Journal‘s Carole Lee wrote a perfectly accurate story about Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pledging to donate $100 million to a World Bank fund for women entrepreneurs. The article noted that the fund was Ivanka Trump’s idea and that she was at the event where the pledge was announced.

When Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Ballhaus tweeted out a link to her colleague’s story, she spun it in such a way as to add inaccuracies. First she reclassified a World Bank fund as a fund belonging to Ivanka Trump.

Then she claimed that the donation from the two countries were therefore akin to what Trump pilloried Hillary Clinton for.

There are three reasons that this fake news went viral, in no particular order.

1) The original report on the fund, from a new online site called Axios, was imprecise. That publication reported that Ivanka Trump had begun building a massive fund and referred to it as her fund. As the Washington Post‘s David Fahrenthold explained, though, “the first daughter would have no role in raising money for such a fund or deciding where its money would be spent, a Trump administration official said.” He noted that the idea for a fund for women entrepreneurs was Ivanka Trump’s, but that the World Bank and White House issued a statement that the fund would be managed by the World Bank.

2) The Trump family has a lack of transparency. President Donald Trump chose not to release his tax returns, unlike every major-party presidential candidate in recent decades. Because he has significant business interests around the globe, the American public has reasonable questions that have not been answered regarding any potential conflicts of interest.

3) A cartoonish hostility in the media to Trump. Finally, reporters, pundits, and activists (but I repeat myself!) are so hostile to Trump that they are willing to push out negative stories without checking out the underlying facts. More is expected of journalists, who already have very little credibility with readers.

It's explained pretty simply in this Post. Anyone who can read should be able to understand that unlike the Clinton Foundation run by Chelsea, Ivanka has nothing to do with the money she only made the suggestion that a fund be started.
I realize this is a tough situation for the Trump haters to accept, but it seems totally different from the Clinton foundation to me.

The Trumps in spite of their affluence do not control the World Bank, therefore have no control over this fund.

 

[Sapidus]

It's explained pretty simply in this Post. Anyone who can read should be able to understand that unlike the Clinton Foundation run by Chelsea, Ivanka has nothing to do with the money she only made the suggestion that a fund be started.
I realize this is a tough situation for the Trump haters to accept, but it seems totally different from the Clinton foundation to me.

The Trumps in spite of their affluence do not control the World Bank, therefore have no control over this fund.

Yeah. We get it. And charity watch gave the Clinton foundation and A rating and 84% of their donations went directly to their cause. Just because you think there was something wrong with the Clinton foundation doesn't make it so.

 

[hotbikermama40]

Yeah. We get it. And charity watch gave the Clinton foundation and A rating and 84% of their donations went directly to their cause. Just because you think there was something wrong with the Clinton foundation doesn't make it so.

That 'A' rating was based on the FYE 12/31/2014...and issued over a year ago. Things have changed oh-so significantly since then. But considering outdated financial information, timeliness in reporting their financial data for the more recent fiscal year will allow us all a better picture.

Remember, just because you think NOTHING is wrong with the Clinton foundation doesn't make it so...

You gleefully accuse many of us on the forum as being "up Trump's butt" - so I feel it is only fair to ask...how's the Hill ####ry?

 

[Sapidus]

That 'A' rating was based on the FYE 12/31/2014...and issued over a year ago. Things have changed oh-so significantly since then. But considering outdated financial information, timeliness in reporting their financial data for the more recent fiscal year will allow us all a better picture.

Remember, just because you think NOTHING is wrong with the Clinton foundation doesn't make it so...

You gleefully accuse many of us on the forum as being "up Trump's butt" - so I feel it is only fair to ask...how's the Hill ####ry?

Fair enough. You have a problem with the Clinton foundations rating not being up to date but no problem with the lack of any type of financial disclosure on Trumps behalf or the fact that he didn't release his tax return. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[Gilligan]

but no problem with the lack of any type of financial disclosure on Trumps behalf or the fact that he didn't release his tax return.

Of course he did, Mo Ron. And apparently the IRS has had no ongoing issues with what his accountants disclosed.

 

[Sapidus]

Of course he did, Mo Ron. And apparently the IRS has had no ongoing issues with what his accountants disclosed.

So is he under audit as he claims or not?

And the phrase " no money from Russia with certain exceptions ". Isn't exactly comforting.

 

[hotbikermama40]

Fair enough. You have a problem with the Clinton foundations rating not being up to date but no problem with the lack of any type of financial disclosure on Trumps behalf or the fact that he didn't release his tax return. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

What the...what?!!! Seriously, pry your snit out of Hillary's snoot. Not once did I say I "have a problem" with the Clinton Foundation - and I don't as long as it does what it says it does in it's mission statement. But that's neither here nor there. It appears to be you have a problem with Trump if he leans to the left to fart rather than to the right. Seriously, your obsession with him borders on stalker behavior...but is most definitely solidly planted in ridiculous diatribe.

 

[Gilligan]

So is he under audit as he claims or not?

The percentage of highly successful businesses that are routinely audited would blow your tiny little never-did-anything mind.

And guess what, Mo? The Russians spend more money buying the products that my alliance company sells than any other single nationality. So. What. They've got the money to spend..we gladly take it. That's what is called "business", something you know less than nothing about.

 

[Sapidus]

What the...what?!!! Seriously, pry your snit out of Hillary's snoot. Not once did I say I "have a problem" with the Clinton Foundation - and I don't as long as it does what it says it does in it's mission statement. But that's neither here nor there. It appears to be you have a problem with Trump if he leans to the left to fart rather than to the right. Seriously, your obsession with him borders on stalker behavior...but is most definitely solidly planted in ridiculous diatribe.

As I already stated I don't have a problem with the Clinton foundation or the fund that Ivanka is starting. My problem is the hypocrisy of Trump's earlier statement. He obviously doesn't have the same issues once it's his daughters fund receiving the money and the issue of pay to play doesn't worry him either.

See his earlier Tweet that I quoted

 

[Sapidus]

The percentage of highly successful businesses that are routinely audited would blow your tiny little never-did-anything mind.

And guess what, Mo? The Russians spend more money buying the products that my alliance company sells than any other single nationality. So. What. They've got the money to spend..we gladly take it. That's what is called "business", something you know less than nothing about.

So what? That's not illegal. What would be illegal would be selling a home to a Russian oligarch for twice its worth in exchange for a quid pro quo situation. Try to stay on the topic or at least reasonably close. Also the IRS said repeatedly there was no reason for Trump not to release his returns while under audit.