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

[hotbikermama40]

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

I saw it, and you are missing a very VERY important piece - it's not (I repeat NOT) Ivanka's fund. It was her idea, but the fund is started and held by World Bank. She has ZERO control, and President Trump has ZERO control over any money that is donated into that fund. As the Clinton's maintain control over the money donated to their fund, and subsequently many donors have been able to "play" since they "paid", the two cannot be compared.
Apples and oranges, as they say.

 

[Hijinx]

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.

And you believed them. How about I sell you the Governor Nice Bridge---------------cheap.

 

[Hijinx]

I saw it, and you are missing a very VERY important piece - it's not (I repeat NOT) Ivanka's fund. It was her idea, but the fund is started and held by World Bank. She has ZERO control, and President Trump has ZERO control over any money that is donated into that fund. As the Clinton's maintain control over the money donated to their fund, and subsequently many donors have been able to "play" since they "paid", the two cannot be compared.
Apples and oranges, as they say.

Sap has a hard time understanding the English language.

 

[Sapidus]

I saw it, and you are missing a very VERY important piece - it's not (I repeat NOT) Ivanka's fund. It was her idea, but the fund is started and held by World Bank. She has ZERO control, and President Trump has ZERO control over any money that is donated into that fund. As the Clinton's maintain control over the money donated to their fund, and subsequently many donors have been able to "play" since they "paid", the two cannot be compared.
Apples and oranges, as they say.[/QUOTE

I guess that is your opinion. If she started the fund she has every reason to do a favor for the people who donate to it as she has a vested interest in its success. You can't prove that anything untoward happened with the Clinton foundation anymore than I can show that Trump is influenced by the donation to the fund started by his daughter.

The issue I see is Trumps criticism of the Clintons for doing the exact same thing Ivanka is doing now. I don't know how many more times or different ways I can explain it to you.

 

[Sapidus]

And you believed them. How about I sell you the Governor Nice Bridge---------------cheap.

Yeah. They control the charity watchdog group. Just like they control the D.C. Police and everyone who has ever investigated them and they run a pizza sex ring and they also control Trump since he decided not to pursue charges. I know that you think they are all powerful lizard people but good god get some perspective.

 

[hotbikermama40]

I saw it, and you are missing a very VERY important piece - it's not (I repeat NOT) Ivanka's fund. It was her idea, but the fund is started and held by World Bank. She has ZERO control, and President Trump has ZERO control over any money that is donated into that fund. As the Clinton's maintain control over the money donated to their fund, and subsequently many donors have been able to "play" since they "paid", the two cannot be compared.
Apples and oranges, as they say.[/QUOTE

I guess that is your opinion. If she started the fund she has every reason to do a favor for the people who donate to it as she has a vested interest in its success. You can't prove that anything untoward happened with the Clinton foundation anymore than I can show that Trump is influenced by the donation to the fund started by his daughter.

The issue I see is Trumps criticism of the Clintons for doing the exact same thing Ivanka is doing now. I don't know how many more times or different ways I can explain it to you.

and how many other ways are there to say "IVANKA DID NOT START THE FUND"?!!!

and ffs, "doing a favor for the person who donates money to you" is called "a business deal". THAT is Pay to Play and It. Is. Wrong.

You are correct in your question of how many more times or different ways you can explain, being that what the Clintons have done is NOTHING like what Ivanka has done, but with you, the possibilities are nothing if not grossly entertaining.

 

[hotbikermama40]

Sap has a hard time understanding the English language.

Do you think if the forum came with blank paper and crayons, we could help him bridge that gap?

 

[Sapidus]

and how many other ways are there to say "IVANKA DID NOT START THE FUND"?!!!

and ffs, "doing a favor for the person who donates money to you" is called "a business deal". THAT is Pay to Play and It. Is. Wrong.

You are correct in your question of how many more times or different ways you can explain, being that what the Clintons have done is NOTHING like what Ivanka has done, but with you, the possibilities are nothing if not grossly entertaining.

Do you know the word apologist?

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, sent a letter to the director of the Office of Government Ethics on April 28 urging them to review potential conflicts that come from both Trump's involvement with the fund and her decision not to divest from her businesses.

"I am concerned that Ms. Trump’s refusal to divest from her business interests, and her creation of a fund to solicit foreign money, provides foreign governments an opportunity to improperly influence United States trade and foreign policy," Wyden wrote in the letter.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/saudi-arabia-uae-pledge-100m-womens-fund-ivanka/story?id=47560100

 

[PrchJrkr]

I guess that is your opinion. If she started the fund she has every reason to do a favor for the people who donate to it as she has a vested interest in its success. You can't prove that anything untoward happened with the Clinton foundation anymore than I can show that Trump is influenced by the donation to the fund started by his daughter.

The issue I see is Trumps criticism of the Clintons for doing the exact same thing Ivanka is doing now. I don't know how many more times or different ways I can explain it to you.

Okay, the jig is up. Whose MPD are you?

Are you Pete, Toxick, isbob? Time to come clean. Someone may see this #### and actually be swayed by it.

 

[hotbikermama40]

Do you know the word apologist?

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, sent a letter to the director of the Office of Government Ethics on April 28 urging them to review potential conflicts that come from both Trump's involvement with the fund and her decision not to divest from her businesses.

"I am concerned that Ms. Trump’s refusal to divest from her business interests, and her creation of a fund to solicit foreign money, provides foreign governments an opportunity to improperly influence United States trade and foreign policy," Wyden wrote in the letter.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/saudi-arabia-uae-pledge-100m-womens-fund-ivanka/story?id=47560100

So my take on this most recent absurdity of a post from you is that Sen. Wyden, a DEMOCRAT, wrote a letter expressing "concern" (*snort*) over Ms. Trump's "potential" conflicts (trans: there is no conflict but I'm hoping to plant the seeds of doubt so maybe you see some conflict) over her "creation of a fund" that again, and I swear to heaven ONE LAST TIME, she did NOT create (she conceptualized it and someone else formed it). Read on, and for pity's sake, get someone to help you with the words you don't understand:

'"A World Bank global fund to support female entrepreneurship won a combined $100 million donation from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The announcement came directly from World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, who spoke on Sunday in Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh during President Donald Trump’s visit to the kingdom.

Kim credited First Daughter Ivanka Trump, who was present at the event, for suggesting the fund’s creation. "We thought it was a fantastic idea," Kim said, according to NPR. "But we had no idea how quickly this would build. This is really a stunning achievement. I've never seen anything come together so quickly, and I really have to say that Ivanka's leadership has been tremendous."'

also in the article:

'Together with Kim, she penned an editorial discussing strategies for female economic empowerment for the Financial Times on April 25, the day the president’s daughter and one of his senior advisers made her first foreign trip in an official capacity to the G20 Women’s Summit in Berlin.

The topic of the global facility for female entrepreneurship came up again at the summit, forcing White House officials to clarify Trump’s role in it. “She will not solicit funds. This is not a White House fund. This is not something that she will have any authority over in any way,” said an administration official in the Washington Post."

http://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trump-inspired-fund-women-entrepreneurs-wins-saudi-support-613196

Your never-ending ridiculous posts don't make you any great, reknowned apologist for the Democrats, Liberals or Leftist crazy - they just make you kind of pathetic. Are you a patheticist? It's not really a word, but I'm willing to overlook it...

 

[littlelady]

More hypocrisy from Trump

Does the Clinton foundation sound familiar to anyone?

Before you make excuses, the Clinton's never received any money from the fund it was for development and education purposes. Sounds pretty familiar.

I'll refresh your memories as to what Trump had to say then

Last year, however, Donald Trump bashed the Clinton Foundation for accepting money from countries with human rights issues, implying the move was in direct contrast to the help the foundation was established to provide.
"Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays," Trump wrote on Facebook. "Hillary must return all money from such countries!"
During his campaign for president, Trump also tweeted about what he claimed was a "pay-for-play" agreement with countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation.


Who just made an arms deal with the Saudis I wonder?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/21/politics/saudi-pledge-trump-women/


LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!

It was a pledge. Not a done deal. If you are so oblivious/unaccepting to what has happened before Trump became prez, I cannot help you. What is wrong with a women's fund? The women in the ME are treated as second class citizens. If the Saudi's want to help change that, it is a good thing. This is another example of anything Trump will get bad commentary. He/they are fighting to keep America free. You better hope it works, or you are not going to be very happy, or free. I have said this before. Why would Donald run for prez? He had a golden gilded cooshy life. Who would want the headache of being POTUS if they didn't feel the urgency. Obama was POTUS because he wanted to take America away from her founding roots. Trump is POTUS because he wants to make sure America's roots are not uprooted.

And, the Clintons and Obamas had plenty of crony/family/pals in their admins, too. What is your argument, really?

 

[Sapidus]

So my take on this most recent absurdity of a post from you is that Sen. Wyden, a DEMOCRAT, wrote a letter expressing "concern" (*snort*) over Ms. Trump's "potential" conflicts (trans: there is no conflict but I'm hoping to plant the seeds of doubt so maybe you see some conflict) over her "creation of a fund" that again, and I swear to heaven ONE LAST TIME, she did NOT create (she conceptualized it and someone else formed it). Read on, and for pity's sake, get someone to help you with the words you don't understand:

'"A World Bank global fund to support female entrepreneurship won a combined $100 million donation from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The announcement came directly from World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, who spoke on Sunday in Saudi Arabia’s capital Riyadh during President Donald Trump’s visit to the kingdom.

Kim credited First Daughter Ivanka Trump, who was present at the event, for suggesting the fund’s creation. "We thought it was a fantastic idea," Kim said, according to NPR. "But we had no idea how quickly this would build. This is really a stunning achievement. I've never seen anything come together so quickly, and I really have to say that Ivanka's leadership has been tremendous."'

also in the article:

'Together with Kim, she penned an editorial discussing strategies for female economic empowerment for the Financial Times on April 25, the day the president’s daughter and one of his senior advisers made her first foreign trip in an official capacity to the G20 Women’s Summit in Berlin.

The topic of the global facility for female entrepreneurship came up again at the summit, forcing White House officials to clarify Trump’s role in it. “She will not solicit funds. This is not a White House fund. This is not something that she will have any authority over in any way,” said an administration official in the Washington Post."

http://www.newsweek.com/ivanka-trump-inspired-fund-women-entrepreneurs-wins-saudi-support-613196

Your never-ending ridiculous posts don't make you any great, reknowned apologist for the Democrats, Liberals or Leftist crazy - they just make you kind of pathetic. Are you a patheticist? It's not really a word, but I'm willing to overlook it...

More excuses. So she "suggested it but I'm sure she has no desire to see it succeed or any reason to try ensure its success by offering access to her father. Sarcasm.

You are giving her and Trump the benefit of the doubt and not doing the same despite having no proof otherwise for the Clinton foundation.

You believe anything the Clintons do is evil because you have read all the propaganda against them in the far right media. Exactly the same way you think I have been tainted by the left.

Regardless of what you say the situations are exactly the same.

The only difference is the Clintons run theirs but you have no proof they have done anything but try to fulfill the mission of the foundation.

Therefore you are hypocritical.

No matter how many mental gymnastics you do or excuses you make.

 

[Sapidus]

It was a pledge. Not a done deal. If you are so oblivious/unaccepting to what has happened before Trump became prez, I cannot help you. What is wrong with a women's fund? The women in the ME are treated as second class citizens. If the Saudi's want to help change that, it is a good thing. This is another example of anything Trump will get bad commentary. He/they are fighting to keep America free. You better hope it works, or you are not going to be very happy, or free. I have said this before. Why would Donald run for prez? He had a golden gilded cooshy life. Who would want the headache of being POTUS if they didn't feel the urgency. Obama was POTUS because he wanted to take America away from her founding roots. Trump is POTUS because he wants to make sure America's roots are not uprooted.

And, the Clintons and Obamas had plenty of crony/family/pals in their admins, too. What is your argument, really?

I can't believe how many times I have to explain things on here.

I think both funds are great. They have great goals.

My problem is that since Trump is president a donation to the fund that was thought up by his daughter could be construed as a bribe to get him to do what the government that makes the donation wants him to do.

If you look at the tweet I quoted of his earlier you will that see was his exact criticism of the Clinton foundation.

So I believe it is hypocritical that his supporters are cheering this donation while 6 months ago they are saying that the Clinton foundation was a conflict of interest.


Is that easy enough for everyone to understand?

 

[littlelady]

I can't believe how many times I have to explain things on here.

I think both funds are great. They have great goals.

My problem is that since Trump is president a donation to the fund that was thought up by his daughter could be construed as a bribe to get him to do what the government that makes the donation wants him to do.

If you look at the tweet I quoted of his earlier you will that see was his exact criticism of the Clinton foundation.

So I believe it is hypocritical that his supporters are cheering this donation while 6 months ago they are saying that the Clinton foundation was a conflict of interest.

Is that easy enough for everyone to understand?

No.

 

[hotbikermama40]

More excuses. So she "suggested it but I'm sure she has no desire to see it succeed or any reason to try ensure its success by offering access to her father. Sarcasm.

You are giving her and Trump the benefit of the doubt and not doing the same despite having no proof otherwise for the Clinton foundation.

You believe anything the Clintons do is evil because you have read all the propaganda against them in the far right media. Exactly the same way you think I have been tainted by the left.

Regardless of what you say the situations are exactly the same.

The only difference is the Clintons run theirs but you have no proof they have done anything but try to fulfill the mission of the foundation.

Therefore you are hypocritical.

No matter how many mental gymnastics you do or excuses you make.

Yep...patheticist. New word. I called it. My new word for Sappy, ya'll. I'll use it in a sentence: "Sappy is trying so hard with his limited understanding and grasp of the English language and basics of simple English grammar to be a great patheticist for anything Left-wing, pro-Clinton or anti-Trump"

(I'm screenshooting this, so nobody better steal it from me!)

 

[Sapidus]

Yep...patheticist. New word. I called it. My new word for Sappy, ya'll. I'll use it in a sentence: "Sappy is trying so hard with his limited understanding and grasp of the English language and basics of simple English grammar to be a great patheticist for anything Left-wing, pro-Clinton or anti-Trump"

(I'm screenshooting this, so nobody better steal it from me!)

When the conversation gets uncomfortable because you see how ridiculous you are just make fun of the other person.

Sad.

 

[littlelady]

Actually, Sap, you did the name calling first. I don't like name calling on this forum, and try not to do it. But, it is all saved for posterity in the forum archives, that you did it first. You lose. Prove me wrong, and I will say I was wrong about you.

 

[littlelady]

When the conversation gets uncomfortable because you see how ridiculous you are just make fun of the other person.

Sad.

I wish y'all would get your 'reply with quote' thing straight. But, that is not important in the scheme of it all. Sap, are you absolutely serious about what you posted, and truly believe you are not a hypocrite? Do you not realize what is going on in our government? It is called libprogs that thought their agenda would continue through Hillary. Errrrk! Crash! It happened, and they are scrambling to clean up the Trump train wreck. Guess what happened here. Americans are sick of the bullcrap, and elected someone that might be able to fix it. Socialism/communism is not my/our bag. I am proud of Americans for fighting for our country as in voting. It could get worse. Second revolution, anyone? If you cannot see what the Dems are trying to do, I can't help you. A bunch of elitists who will not be touched by the destruction of America and The Constitution. They will still live in their ivory towers when the people are trying to survive. That has been my whole point about Trump. He lived in an ivory tower, but came down to try to save America. Who does that? He must have strong beliefs, like I do, that America is in trouble. For all of you that don't get that, you really are not paying attention.

And you forgot the other part of your forum name...callinectes...callinectes sapidus is the scientific name for the blue crab. Learn something every day. Thanks!.

 

[GURPS]

Me too. And I just talked a bit with one of my very non-political friends -

amazingly you can vote without picking a presidential candidate

 

[GURPS]

..... and not doing the same despite having no proof otherwise for the Clinton foundation.

let me see ......

Clinton Foundation gets a donation from the Russians, Hillary approves [through the DoS] a deal for the same Russian to purchase Uranium


:shrug: