|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Clinton to keep accepting donations from foreign governments
Apr 16, 2015, 10:21 AM
|
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/16/clinton-foundation-to-keep-accepting-donations-from-foreign-governments/
The Clinton Foundation said late Wednesday that it will continue to accept donations from foreign governments during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, despite concerns that such gifts will create a conflict of interest for the Democratic front-runner.
Ethics experts had called on the foundation to stop accepting all foreign donations for the duration of Clinton's presidential campaign.
Mentioning ethics and the Clintons in the same sentence is laughable.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
"what are they gonna do..not vote for me?
Apr 16, 2015, 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56067]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Please be more specific, Fox News.
Apr 16, 2015, 10:45 AM
|
|
"Ethics experts had called on the foundation to stop accepting all foreign donations for the duration of Clinton's presidential campaign."
Which ethics experts?
"Critics targeted the foundation's reliance on funding from several Middle Eastern governments."
Which critics?
"The Associated Press contributed to this report."
The AP doesn't mention these "experts" in their report, but the "critics" are clearly identified.
"The foundation's reliance on funding from several Mideast governments... sparked criticism and gave the Republican Party a new offensive against the leading Democrat."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
What are your thoughts on the Clinton Foundation decision?***
Apr 16, 2015, 11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56067]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Are they involved in her campaign?
Apr 16, 2015, 11:11 AM
|
|
If not, it doesn't matter.
It would be interesting if this started a conversation about campaign finance, though. Clearly some people on the right are concerned about foreign money going to US presidential candidates' campaigns. Does that include money from international or foreign corporations? If there's concern about financing coming from the Mideast, perhaps we should take a look at who's accepting large contributions from oil companies that do business over there. I'd love to hear some ethics experts weigh in on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Good points.
Apr 16, 2015, 11:38 AM
|
|
I don't think it's whether or not the money goes to the campaign...it's whether or not foreign governments can buy influence with the potential future CIC.
You would think the same concern would be there regarding foreign businesses. Maybe it is and I don't understand all the rules.
What we need...and what I think would be the most constructive approach to dealing with this issue...is if someone would fly a mini-helicopter onto the capital lawn with some letters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
Re: Are they involved in her campaign?
Apr 16, 2015, 11:53 AM
[ in reply to Are they involved in her campaign? ] |
|
I would hope many on the left and every other direction are concerned about foreign money going to presidential candidates' campaigns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56067]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
I was defending journalistic integrity.***
Apr 16, 2015, 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Fox is trustworty. MSNBC, not so much.***
Apr 16, 2015, 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1527]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/2/15
|
Re: Fox is trustworty. MSNBC, not so much.***
Apr 16, 2015, 1:43 PM
|
|
The fact that anybody can watch more than 10 minutes of either and not want to throw up is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Fox News is the most trusted national news channel.
Apr 16, 2015, 2:55 PM
|
|
And it’s not that close.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/
Fox News Channel beats out CNN for America's most trusted cable or broadcast news coverage, and MSNBC lags far behind, even among Democrats, according to new polling done by Quinnipiac University. The poll found 29 percent of people say they trust Fox News' coverage the most, followed by 22 percent for CNN and 10 percent for NBC News and CBS News.
Fox News' figures are unsurprising considering its ratings. The channel ended 2014 second only to ESPN in total viewers among all ad-supported basic cable networks.
Liberal dominance of news is over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
They have the hottest bobble heads telling us the news.
Apr 16, 2015, 2:57 PM
|
|
So there's that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Unfortunately, I watch Brett Baier.***
Apr 16, 2015, 3:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
You have just illuminated a truth about liberals.
Apr 16, 2015, 3:30 PM
|
|
They think that they are smarter than anyone else, that they are inherently right, and therefore anyone who disagrees is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Would you rather break down facts?
Apr 16, 2015, 4:18 PM
|
|
I present a study that shows Fox is factually incorrect more times than not. And far more than anyone else.
You post a study that shows more Americans trust Fox, and you somehow think that means they're honest.
You know what else? More Americans eat at McDonald's than anywhere else. But that doesn't make a Big Mac a ####### Filet Mignon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
I really don't need a study to tell me the news
Apr 17, 2015, 7:55 AM
|
|
coming out of MSNBC is nothing but Democrat talking points. I don't need a study to tell me when I am getting both sides of an issue fairly presented. I don't need a study to tell me the Clintons are greedy, lying, deceiving low lifes that the liberal news outlets defend and protect. I lived through the misrepresentations during Vietnam, the 70's, and the 80's, when the only thing we had was the liberal side. It's different now, and I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If you desire to watch a "news" network
Apr 17, 2015, 8:05 AM
|
|
That gets 60 percent of the facts wrong, then you deserve your blissful ignorance. You do you, baby.
But if you had an accountant who was wrong on your taxes 60 percent of the time, and you thought he was trustworthy, the IRS is still taking your butt to jail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
The 60% number is bogus.***
Apr 17, 2015, 8:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: The 60% number is bogus.***
Apr 17, 2015, 8:58 AM
|
|
It is bogus. They even pretty much admit it. LOL
They choose which stories to fact check. In other words CNN may run 10 false stories today and unless Politifact CHOOSES to fact check, those stories aren't included in the score card
LOL
And I'm no Fox watcher, I really don't watch any of it. I prefer reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
as liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow put it:
Apr 17, 2015, 11:41 AM
|
|
(with regard to Politifact) “You are undermining the definition of the word ‘fact’ in the English language by pretending to it in your name. The English language wants its word back.”
http://humanevents.com/2012/08/30/politifact-bias-does-the-gop-tell-nine-times-more-lies-than-left-really/
PolitiFact started off straight. As a partnership of Congressional Quarterly and the Tampa Bay Times (then the St. Petersburg Times) formed in 2007, the outfit won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 election. The partnership dissolved shortly after when The Poynnter Institute – the parent company of both outfits – sold off CQ.
The Florida journalists carried on alone, and their liberal tendencies became more obvious as the “Pants on Fire” rulings piled up on one side. By one count, from the end of that partnership to the end of 2011, the national PolitiFact operation has issued 119 Pants on Fire ratings for Republican or conservative claims, and only 13 for liberal or Democratic claims.
In another tally, just of claims made by elected officials, Republicans lose 64-10 over the same three-year period.
Those numbers were compiled by Bryan White, who co-founded PolitiFactBias, a blog dedicated to chronicling examples of what he considers poor reasoning, sloppy research, or bias by the PolitiFact.
In considering all rulings where a claim is found untrue (False and Pants on Fire rulings combined), two things are obvious: First, that PolitiFact thinks Republicans are wrong far more often than Democrats and, second, when Republicans are wrong, they’re often said to be lying, while Democrats are just mistaken.
Prof. Eric Ostermeier at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, who examined more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011, found the same two tendencies that White did: Republicans are called wrong more than three times as often, and when they’re found wrong, they’re more than three times as likely to be called a liar.
But the problem isn’t that PolitiFact makes bizarre judgments. It’s that PolitiFact pretends those judgments are facts.
The fact-checkers aren’t just blind to their own opinion; they are blind to the concept. They’ll cite one wonk’s opinion as dispositive, when others who are well informed disagree.
Politifact partisan bias aside, common sense should tell you Fox is not wrong 60% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Prove it.
Apr 17, 2015, 12:07 PM
[ in reply to Prove it. ] |
|
Once again, your own link says "As we have said in the past, be cautious about using the scorecards to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything."
Your own link admits that it isn't "60% of the time," it's 60% of what they actually check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
When you take a random collection of stories
Apr 17, 2015, 2:01 PM
|
|
And 60 percent are wrong, that's damning to your organization, regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: When you take a random collection of stories
Apr 17, 2015, 2:17 PM
|
|
I would agree except I don't think it's random. They choosing stories from each network, my thoughts are they are more likely to overlook a false story from CNN or MSNBC.
IF they fact checked EVERY story from each network, that would be more honest.
They even admit at the bottom of the page that they don't check stories on a even level. That speaks volumes....but at least they are being honest about that small part
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: When you take a random collection of stories
Apr 17, 2015, 2:27 PM
|
|
I don't watch much of the crap on any of the networks, I prefer the Sunday morning shows and reading.
I can't even watch the Weather Channel without wanting to throw the tv out the door. Even they have become about pretty faces and dumbing down weather news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's not what they said at all.
Apr 17, 2015, 2:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: When you take a random collection of stories ] |
|
They said this:
"We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn’t have a cable network equivalent, so we haven’t fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much."
That means they chose a few specific topics. I would imagine it physically impossible to check every single fact out there. They said they don't check all networks on an even level because not all networks have something comparable to Fox, CNN, MSNBC.
The fact that they took a random sampling and 60 percent was incorrect is an indication of bad journalism. Period. CNN and MSNBC's are too high, too, but Fox is blatantly egregious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: That's not what they said at all.
Apr 17, 2015, 3:05 PM
|
|
I doubt they doing it random.
Once again, your own article warns about making a broad brush.
Spin all you want, but it's telling ya that NO, not 60% of all their stories are false. And that is exactly what you implied when you first posted the link.
Hell, I can sit down and watch 30 different stories on CNN and then choose at "random" which ones to fact check. And just like anyone else, I'm gonna fact check those stories to point CNN as wrong more often.
My point in this is just as CDEF thinks Fox is gospel and the others are the anti-christ, there are those on the far left that does the same. And of course, there gonna pick stories at "random" bs word to get the data they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: That's not what they said at all.
Apr 17, 2015, 3:27 PM
|
|
I know it's not possible but if all stories on all three news networks were fact checked, I'd bet my house that all three networks would be about equal and none would be even close to a 60% false bs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1527]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 1366
Joined: 4/2/15
|
Re: Fox News is the most trusted national news channel.
Apr 16, 2015, 3:44 PM
[ in reply to Fox News is the most trusted national news channel. ] |
|
Is that really how you interpret the numbers? And if you do, you see this is as a good thing??
I think the problem in and of itself is the fact that cable news is taken even remotely seriously in America. Period. The fact that we're arguing about which one is watched more is moreso an indicator of our misguidance.
The "us vs. them" mentality feeding this brand of pseudo-journalism is what the two party system thrives on. Sure, Murdoch, Turner & the folks on Capitol Hill get what they want. But do the people? Well, aside from having strictly constructed buckets tying together ideology and identity as it relates to the question "are you a liberal, or are you a conservative?"
If cable news is really considered a serious source of information among non-stay-at-home-housewives in this country (and it appears it is), it's no wonder we're so divided. There's a multi-billion dollar industry that literally thrives on the people's propensity for tribalism. Who'da thunk it?
You may not be this way, but there are plenty of folks who believe exactly what MSNBC and FOX tell them to believe. And that drives how this country votes and ends up manifesting itself in our politics. It waters down our dialogue to memorable talking points and is a childish game of one-upmanship. It's not about who is right or the most well-reasoned, but who is the most shocking, the most outrageous, the loudest.
That's the problem. And I can't believe that so many people are still playing the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Have you ever watched Brett Baier?***
Apr 16, 2015, 3:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Who told you Fox was trustworthy? Fox?
Apr 17, 2015, 8:55 AM
[ in reply to Who told you Fox was trustworthy? Fox? ] |
|
From your link "As we have said in the past, be cautious about using the scorecards to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything."
They pick what stories they choose to fact check. Yeah, that leaves absolutely no room for bias right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13970
Joined: 7/31/04
|
Re: Clinton to keep accepting donations from foreign governments
Apr 16, 2015, 11:17 AM
|
|
When Bill said he didn't have sex with women, he was really talking about hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67817]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115457
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Clinton to keep accepting donations from foreign governments
Apr 16, 2015, 1:42 PM
|
|
what accountability does their foundation have generally. seems to me this is likely just a ruse for them to enrich themselves. what accountability is there for a foundation like this run by anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111555]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73744
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Clinton to keep accepting donations from foreign governments
Apr 16, 2015, 2:14 PM
|
|
somebody remind me again who pushed citizens united through our supreme court?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
How is that related to foreign gov't payments?***
Apr 16, 2015, 2:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
