It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Maybe the news will start to care and report it, maybe they won't. They should be. Do people seriously think that giving speeches to rich people is an occupation? It's called being an over privileged insider
snowpeckDidn't the Ecuadorian embassy take away Julian Assanges internet access?
Allegedly, yes. They've been feeling a ton of pressure from the US and other 'institutes' to have him extradited. After they leaked the goldman sachs/hillary transcripts that was a tipping point and the people targeted probably made some calls to force the embassy into doing something. So yeah it was basically a shot across his bow.
One of the conditions for Julian to remain at the embassy is that he's supposed to remain nonpartisan when it comes to what info he leaks. But in his position, he has TONS of info on what could potentially be an administration that would increase pressure even more to have him extradited/killed so it's totally in his best interest to continue to leak things to prevent Hillary from becoming president.
I'm totally for it though. Corruption is corruption no matter what side of the isle it's on.
There's also a theory that he was extracted to the US that morning/day so it's entirely possible he's in custody or dead already. Either way it's been almost 2 weeks without verified direct contact from Julian. People have been asking for proof of life and the info provided has been sketchy at best. The whole pam anderson thing is pretty fucking weird too.
milk_manNah I just realized there wasn't a thread about the most recent releases, and that no one is really talking about it even though it should be huge
"should be" huge. why dont we just wait until something actually happens
Iraq_Lobsteri think it's interesting because a lot of big stuff seems to be coming out but no major outlets seem to want to talk about a lot of it
I mean, I'll be honest, I haven't seen anything that has blown me away in terms of being a surprise. Most of it is to be expected. Is it right? No. Is it politics? Yes. Is the political arena ethical? Nope. Will it change? I highly doubt it. It is a zero sum game.
.MASSHOLE.I mean, I'll be honest, I haven't seen anything that has blown me away in terms of being a surprise. Most of it is to be expected. Is it right? No. Is it politics? Yes. Is the political arena ethical? Nope. Will it change? I highly doubt it. It is a zero sum game.
I guess none of it has really blown me away either but still. What do you mean by "it's not right" though
Iraq_LobsterI guess none of it has really blown me away either but still. What do you mean by "it's not right" though
The interactions between certain political figures and money swapping hands and latter outcomes. It's not clear cut at for play but it's not a good look
Iraq_LobsterI guess none of it has really blown me away either but still. What do you mean by "it's not right" though
The interactions between certain political figures and money swapping hands and latter outcomes. It's not clear cut at for play but it's not a good look
.MASSHOLE.I mean, I'll be honest, I haven't seen anything that has blown me away in terms of being a surprise. Most of it is to be expected. Is it right? No. Is it politics? Yes. Is the political arena ethical? Nope. Will it change? I highly doubt it. It is a zero sum game.
Bruh. Forreal? How bout the stuff from today??
"Wikileaks batch 22. Clinton Foundation 2013, of $84.6 million paid out---$9 million went to charities (grants); about $28 million for salaries/benefits; for travel $8 million; lush conferences $9 million. Whoa! About 10% went to charity. Could I set up a deal like this for me?"
milk_manBruh. Forreal? How bout the stuff from today??
"Wikileaks batch 22. Clinton Foundation 2013, of $84.6 million paid out---$9 million went to charities (grants); about $28 million for salaries/benefits; for travel $8 million; lush conferences $9 million. Whoa! About 10% went to charity. Could I set up a deal like this for me?"
I don't actively follow every leak tbh, I don't care enough. Anything that comes out that is truly damaging will get covered. And that sheet right there is available on the Clinton Foundation website...
But do you know how non-profits work? It isn't 100% grant-giving like the name may imply. Those salaries and wages?
A lot of those people aren't sitting in offices doing paper work, making phone calls, or doing any other white-collared work that you seemingly assume. Many non-profits have to hire people and have to pay them *gasp* to do work in certain regions at the behest of the organization.
Evidently you did not read this statement with that in mind. Look at Column B vs. C. Column B maintains Program Service Expenses (i.e. the expenses required to get feet on the ground, set up infrastructure for the goals etc.) while C is the Management and General Expenses (self-explanatory). The numbers for those columns? 16m vs. 3m. That is a MASSIVE difference than 9m going to Charities/Grants.
So, if you want to add up ALL the expenses in Column B, its 68m vs. 8m for C, and 8m for D (Fundraising expenses).
.MASSHOLE.I don't actively follow every leak tbh, I don't care enough. Anything that comes out that is truly damaging will get covered. And that sheet right there is available on the Clinton Foundation website...
But do you know how non-profits work? It isn't 100% grant-giving like the name may imply. Those salaries and wages?
A lot of those people aren't sitting in offices doing paper work, making phone calls, or doing any other white-collared work that you seemingly assume. Many non-profits have to hire people and have to pay them *gasp* to do work in certain regions at the behest of the organization.
Evidently you did not read this statement with that in mind. Look at Column B vs. C. Column B maintains Program Service Expenses (i.e. the expenses required to get feet on the ground, set up infrastructure for the goals etc.) while C is the Management and General Expenses (self-explanatory). The numbers for those columns? 16m vs. 3m. That is a MASSIVE difference than 9m going to Charities/Grants.
So, if you want to add up ALL the expenses in Column B, its 68m vs. 8m for C, and 8m for D (Fundraising expenses).
But clearly, you knew this. /s
and any of that makes it okay? the Clinton foundation is as much of a scam as the red cross. unacceptable and pretty darn close to fraud
I mean, what about that is wrong? How do you think non-profits and charities work? Do you believe they give checks to countries and let them allocate the money appropriately? If so, you're terribly naive. There is a reason you have NGOs and non-profits operating in these countries alongside governments versus letting the governments handle the funds on their own. Often, they lack the resources, knowledge, and access to proper budgeting to do it on their own. Not to mention that there is a risk of these funds being pocketed or misused.
I think the people in Africa w/ access to HIV and AIDS medication are OK with it. Same can be said for those who are against deforestation.
And, lets be honest, if you're a Trump supporter condemning the Clinton Foundation, take a look at Trumps' donation history. It is ugly.
.MASSHOLE.I don't actively follow every leak tbh, I don't care enough. Anything that comes out that is truly damaging will get covered. /s
you cannot be serious. The media has covered a lot of the damaging stuff the came out. What about the evidence revealing Obama had been lying when he said he didn't know of Clintons server? And her staff scrambling to try and clean it up. I haven't seen any coverage of that. Guess it's not that important?
.MASSHOLE.I don't actively follow every leak tbh, I don't care enough. Anything that comes out that is truly damaging will get covered. /s
you cannot be serious. The media has covered a lot of the damaging stuff the came out. What about the evidence revealing Obama had been lying when he said he didn't know of Clintons server? And her staff scrambling to try and clean it up. I haven't seen any coverage of that. Guess it's not that important?
Iraq_Lobsteryou cannot be serious. The media has covered a lot of the damaging stuff the came out. What about the evidence revealing Obama had been lying when he said he didn't know of Clintons server? And her staff scrambling to try and clean it up. I haven't seen any coverage of that. Guess it's not that important?
Well, I guess having an incomplete picture of the entire thread means you know everything! I guess 1+0=2 in your world.
See, I like to know the entire context of things before I jump to conclusions. Wikileaks, while it certainly has some benefits, also has some questionable practices. I want to know every email, in sequential order. Fuck the periodic releases that are disjointed. Give me context because without it, anything can look bad.
.MASSHOLE.Well, I guess having an incomplete picture of the entire thread means you know everything! I guess 1+0=2 in your world.
See, I like to know the entire context of things before I jump to conclusions. Wikileaks, while it certainly has some benefits, also has some questionable practices. I want to know every email, in sequential order. Fuck the periodic releases that are disjointed. Give me context because without it, anything can look bad.
I get that but it seems hard to spin a lot of this stuff in a positive way. I'm not saying it's concrete but I mean some of this is pretty jarring
Iraq_LobsterI get that but it seems hard to spin a lot of this stuff in a positive way. I'm not saying it's concrete but I mean some of this is pretty jarring
Oh certainly, it looks bad. I am not doubting that, but I am not going to jump to conclusions saying there was collusion between Obama and Hillary over the emails, or anything else of the sort. If there is, it will come out one way or another. The MSM will certainly cover any bombshell like that, but it is irresponsible of them to go with a story that is mostly conjecture based off singular emails with no context.
.MASSHOLE.Oh certainly, it looks bad. I am not doubting that, but I am not going to jump to conclusions saying there was collusion between Obama and Hillary over the emails, or anything else of the sort. If there is, it will come out one way or another. The MSM will certainly cover any bombshell like that, but it is irresponsible of them to go with a story that is mostly conjecture based off singular emails with no context.
I don't think anyone was jumping to the conclusion of collusion. The point was that he clearly knew she had some sort of a private email, and when addressed by the press he said that he learned about it at the same time the American public did. That's a flat out lie
When are we gonna see the 20 million deleted emails from private RNC servers that the Bush Administration was using? I'm sure there's a lot of very interesting stuff to be found on these too.
Iraq_Lobsteryou cannot be serious. The media has covered a lot of the damaging stuff the came out. What about the evidence revealing Obama had been lying when he said he didn't know of Clintons server? And her staff scrambling to try and clean it up. I haven't seen any coverage of that. Guess it's not that important?
I second this, every cable news broadcast across the board has their own agenda and omits stories are hugely relevant in favor of political gossip its disgusting
milk_manI don't think anyone was jumping to the conclusion of collusion. The point was that he clearly knew she had some sort of a private email, and when addressed by the press he said that he learned about it at the same time the American public did. That's a flat out lie
And again, that is assuming he is technologically literate, knows the background of how her email was handled, etc. Shit, setting up email domainn names
CampeadorYou should look into getting a side job in stand-up comedy, you're hilarious.
The bigger story is the FBI reopening the email investigation after looking into the computer of Anthony Weiner.
Could Hillary have a more fitting end than at the hands of Carlos Danger? Hahaha
Open-borders Hillary will probably die soon of natural causes anyway.
You should get checked into your mental home again. You do realize that them looking into Weiner has little to no bearing on her case right? And that Comey will have the DoJ looking into his actions because he may have violated the Hatch Act due to the manner in which he handled this?
.MASSHOLE.You should get checked into your mental home again. You do realize that them looking into Weiner has little to no bearing on her case right? And that Comey will have the DoJ looking into his actions because he may have violated the Hatch Act due to the manner in which he handled this?
They found new information while looking into Weiner and that's why they opened the case back up, so I would say it has a large bearing on her case
milk_manThey found new information while looking into Weiner and that's why they opened the case back up, so I would say it has a large bearing on her case
And they have no idea how pertinent it is. It could be something, it could be nothing. Which is why, in my eyes, it is 100% wrong to have announced this when they have ZERO idea about what it contains in regards to her case.
.MASSHOLE.And they have no idea how pertinent it is. It could be something, it could be nothing. Which is why, in my eyes, it is 100% wrong to have announced this when they have ZERO idea about what it contains in regards to her case.
They actually said the emails appear to be pertinent. Those words are straight from the FBI. It would be impossible for them to determine how pertinent (relevant) the emails are right now since they are just getting into it. Basically Comey felt the need to update Congress on the new info because the case had already been sort of "closed." It was most definitely prematurely closed... and I wonder why
It would have been unfair to the American people for this to happen behind closed doors and for us to not have information about it until after the election
It wasn't "prematurely" closed. It was closed because there was no new evidence. New evidence has been found so they reopened it. That's what usually happen.
As for why reopening it now and not in 10 days, well I'm guessing they didn't want to get into a republican shit storm later on when the discovery date would have been found...
milk_manThey actually said the emails appear to be pertinent. Those words are straight from the FBI. It would be impossible for them to determine how pertinent (relevant) the emails are right now since they are just getting into it. Basically Comey felt the need to update Congress on the new info because the case had already been sort of "closed." It was most definitely prematurely closed... and I wonder why
It would have been unfair to the American people for this to happen behind closed doors and for us to not have information about it until after the election
Exactly. "Appear". That means they have NO clue about whether or not they actually are.
It is unfair for them to actually come out and say something that is this damaging when there is the potential that it is nothing. There is a reason the DoJ is upset about this. There is a reason that there are rumors of a Hatch Act prosecution.
Also it seems that FBI agents knew about these new emails weeks ago (when Weiner's computer was seized) and didn't tell Comey about it until Thursday.
To me it sounds like someone is trying to sabotage Clinton's campaign as revealing the new info earlier in October would have been far less damaging than doing it now.
.MASSHOLE.Exactly. "Appear". That means they have NO clue about whether or not they actually are.
It is unfair for them to actually come out and say something that is this damaging when there is the potential that it is nothing. There is a reason the DoJ is upset about this. There is a reason that there are rumors of a Hatch Act prosecution.
No use speculating. We'll find out soon. My prediction is that it will matter--otherwise they wouldn't have come out with anything. I could be completely wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm completely wrong. That's just my guess
milk_manNo use speculating. We'll find out soon. My prediction is that it will matter--otherwise they wouldn't have come out with anything. I could be completely wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm completely wrong. That's just my guess
But see, there is a problem if it is wrong because it has thrown an unfair stain onto her campaign at a time that is integral for any undecided voters.
.MASSHOLE.But see, there is a problem if it is wrong because it has thrown an unfair stain onto her campaign at a time that is integral for any undecided voters.
lmao Hillary's campaign being treated unfairly..... give me a break dude you gotta wake up
CampeadorHahaha you're just too much, how do you come up with this shit?
mswizzle3lmao Hillary's campaign being treated unfairly..... give me a break dude you gotta wake up
So what may be false accusations are OK? Man, it is amazing what you guys can hurdle around. Campeador, aren't you the one decrying the MSM for being unfair to Donald despite a plethora of information about his lack of donations, history of questionable comments about women, and racist past?
.MASSHOLE.I mean, what about that is wrong? How do you think non-profits and charities work? Do you believe they give checks to countries and let them allocate the money appropriately? If so, you're terribly naive. There is a reason you have NGOs and non-profits operating in these countries alongside governments versus letting the governments handle the funds on their own. Often, they lack the resources, knowledge, and access to proper budgeting to do it on their own. Not to mention that there is a risk of these funds being pocketed or misused.
I think the people in Africa w/ access to HIV and AIDS medication are OK with it. Same can be said for those who are against deforestation.
And, lets be honest, if you're a Trump supporter condemning the Clinton Foundation, take a look at Trumps' donation history. It is ugly.
no im not naive I understand what happens behind the scenes and I do not donate my money to charities. I give directly because that is what makes the most difference. Instead of texting 8008135 to red cross to donate $5 across the world where they don't even get a dollar of it, try taking all your change from your car and giving it to the next homeless man on the corner. My donations are not supposed to pay 10+ million salaries that is fucking bullshit. I just think that nonprofit companies should be held themselves to higher ethics and I want my donations to make an impact, obviously that is not happening. Imagine if instead of your dumbass and all the other dumbass people watching these celebrities sing for your 5 dollar donation to red cross, we all just gave $5 to someone who needed it more than yourself.
Also wrote in bernie blow me, but id rather have trump in office over Hillary 24 hours a day, 7 days of the week, 365 days of the year.
icculus.no im not naive I understand what happens behind the scenes and I do not donate my money to charities. I give directly because that is what makes the most difference. Instead of texting 8008135 to red cross to donate $5 across the world where they don't even get a dollar of it, try taking all your change from your car and giving it to the next homeless man on the corner. My donations are not supposed to pay 10+ million salaries that is fucking bullshit. I just think that nonprofit companies should be held themselves to higher ethics and I want my donations to make an impact, obviously that is not happening. Imagine if instead of your dumbass and all the other dumbass people watching these celebrities sing for your 5 dollar donation to red cross, we all just gave $5 to someone who needed it more than yourself.
Also wrote in bernie blow me, but id rather have trump in office over Hillary 24 hours a day, 7 days of the week, 365 days of the year.
So, you think people working for charities should work for free? You think the $5 you give to a homeless man is better than the medicine and aid given to entire countries?
.MASSHOLE.I mean, what about that is wrong? How do you think non-profits and charities work? Do you believe they give checks to countries and let them allocate the money appropriately? If so, you're terribly naive. There is a reason you have NGOs and non-profits operating in these countries alongside governments versus letting the governments handle the funds on their own. Often, they lack the resources, knowledge, and access to proper budgeting to do it on their own. Not to mention that there is a risk of these funds being pocketed or misused.
I think the people in Africa w/ access to HIV and AIDS medication are OK with it. Same can be said for those who are against deforestation.
And, lets be honest, if you're a Trump supporter condemning the Clinton Foundation, take a look at Trumps' donation history. It is ugly.
.MASSHOLE.So, you think people working for charities should work for free? You think the $5 you give to a homeless man is better than the medicine and aid given to entire countries?
Ok. Then you are naive.
most people who work for the red cross are volunteers... and yes because if you put money in peoples pockets they can get what they need for themselves. hypothetically say idk there was another major disaster and red cross got on funding and raised 300 million dollars. instead of that going to the red cross to "manage" but instead got split up and put in the pockets of the people who were directly affectted by the disaster people would have $$ to fall back on to rebuild to spend to re circulate the economy in that area. but nah yall too selfish.
icculus.most people who work for the red cross are volunteers... and yes because if you put money in peoples pockets they can get what they need for themselves. hypothetically say idk there was another major disaster and red cross got on funding and raised 300 million dollars. instead of that going to the red cross to "manage" but instead got split up and put in the pockets of the people who were directly affectted by the disaster people would have $$ to fall back on to rebuild to spend to re circulate the economy in that area. but nah yall too selfish.
You have ZERO idea how medicine and tenders work then. $5 will not cover HIV/AIDS/Malaria treatments. Nor will it cover a clean water system. Or education. Or SO MANY OTHER THINGS that 3rd world countries do not have access to.
icculus.most people who work for the red cross are volunteers... and yes because if you put money in peoples pockets they can get what they need for themselves. hypothetically say idk there was another major disaster and red cross got on funding and raised 300 million dollars. instead of that going to the red cross to "manage" but instead got split up and put in the pockets of the people who were directly affectted by the disaster people would have $$ to fall back on to rebuild to spend to re circulate the economy in that area. but nah yall too selfish.
yo all im sayin is we dont need the red cross they just fuck it up and pay big salaries, like the Clinton foundation, like our government.
We dont need government we just think we do cause how else we gonna build roads. YO EVERY WAR WE HAVE FOUGHT IS A LIE THE ONLY THING THE GOVERNMENT CARES ABOUT IS ITSELF AND THEIR IMAGE THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU AND NEVER WILL.
bernie did tho. bernie cared but u all fucked that up hard
.MASSHOLE.You have ZERO idea how medicine and tenders work then. $5 will not cover HIV/AIDS/Malaria treatments. Nor will it cover a clean water system. Or education. Or SO MANY OTHER THINGS that 3rd world countries do not have access to.
Yeah, Red Cross certainly has a lot of volunteers that work for free /s.
Aaaaannnnnnnddddd their CEO pulls over $600,000 a year, completely indefensable. Actually that reminds me, Marsha J. Evans' salary is just as indefensable as the Clintons being worth over $30,000,000 from a life of "public service".
.MASSHOLE.You have ZERO idea how medicine and tenders work then. $5 will not cover HIV/AIDS/Malaria treatments. Nor will it cover a clean water system. Or education. Or SO MANY OTHER THINGS that 3rd world countries do not have access to.
Yeah, Red Cross certainly has a lot of volunteers that work for free /s.
last thing cause you are actually stupid\ignorant
you dont think they wouldnt have access to if they they themeslves had money. You dont think they wouldnt build schools and buy clean water systems and make their lives better? nah let the red cross do that cause they killin the game
mswizzle3Aaaaannnnnnnddddd their CEO pulls over $600,000 a year, completely indefensable. Actually that reminds me, Marsha J. Evans' salary is just as indefensable as the Clintons being worth over $30,000,000 from a life of "public service".
Yes, $600,000 a year when the net revenues are $2.989 billion is absurd! /s
How do you think these companies get executives? There is no stock option, why should anyone have to forgo a salary?
icculus.last thing cause you are actually stupid\ignorant
you dont think they wouldnt have access to if they they themeslves had money. You dont think they wouldnt build schools and buy clean water systems and make their lives better? nah let the red cross do that cause they killin the game
HAHAHAHHA holy shit. Do you know what Game Theory is? I doubt it, but you're assuming that the actors are perfectly rational AND playing in a cooperative game. There also is this thing called the free-rider issue which sure as hell would pop up if individuals were to act independently without organization.
Have you ever been to a third world country? Ever seen what the costs associated with building a road, water system, medical facility, etc? Doubt it. They're expensive. How do you expect to organize the workers, paperwork, tools, etc. for building anything? Who is going to organize it? More importantly, how are you going to get the money allocated properly? Just lump sums of cash to random people?
Christ. Go back to your libertarian fantasy world.
mswizzle3I would agree with you except the Red Cross is a "charity" not a company
So because it is a charity these people should work for free? They should forgo a job in the for-profit world to work for these companies? Lol. Good luck convincing anyone to do that. People work off incentives, wages being one of them.
.MASSHOLE.So because it is a charity these people should work for free? They should forgo a job in the for-profit world to work for these companies? Lol. Good luck convincing anyone to do that. People work off incentives, wages being one of them.
Says the guy insinuating that individuals in 3rd world countries know how to better install clean water systems, build healthcare facilities, negotiate drug prices, and properly allocate resources to better their community than people who have degrees in these things. Oh, and believes that people should not be rewarded for work they do.
Got it. Cool story bro. Kinda ironic you're against all these social programs yet liked Bernie Sanders. Huh.
.MASSHOLE.So because it is a charity these people should work for free? They should forgo a job in the for-profit world to work for these companies? Lol. Good luck convincing anyone to do that. People work off incentives, wages being one of them.
Christ, you are so naive.
1. Stop referring to the red cross as a company, its not.
2. Never did I say they shouldn't be paid as I am not naiive nor do I believe there are enough selfless people in this world, however someone making over $600,000 off of DONATIONS which are supposed to help people in need is outrageous.She could have her salary halved or even quartered and still be better off than the majority of people I know who. That point just cannot be argued.
mswizzle31. Stop referring to the red cross as a company, its not.
2. Never did I say they shouldn't be paid as I am not naiive nor do I believe there are enough selfless people in this world, however someone making over $600,000 off of DONATIONS which are supposed to help people in need is outrageous.She could have her salary halved or even quartered and still be better off than the majority of people I know who. That point just cannot be argued.
Sorry, firstly you are wrong, but secondly"non-profit" is just a little more annoying to type out than "company". But in the legal sense, a company is defined as "A legal entity, allowed by legislation, which permits a group of people, as shareholders, to apply to the government for an independent organization to be created, which can then focus on pursuing set objectives, and empowered with legal rights which are usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money." Sounds like the Red Cross.
You do realize that people are compensated based off their worth right, and that competitive pay for CEOs is what helps attract "the best" for those positions? How else do you you attract someone who used to be a VP at AT&T, president at Fidelity Investments, Professor at HBS, and holds an MBA from Columbia? You don't offer them below market wages. People who manage for-profit businesses make almost 3x that amount. You don't find people capable of leading non-profits this size on the street nor do you attract them with substandard pay.
A salary of $600,000 is pennies on the dollar for something the size of Red Cross and frankly is a drop in the bucket of their actual "revenues".
The CEO's compensation? Less than .01% of total revenues. If you can find me a CEO in the for-profit sector that is willing to take a salary that small for a company that big, I'd be shocked.
