Treatment of Colin Powell's Foundation vs. Clinton's

[ivwshane]

Funny how you spread bullshit despite having commented in a thread that debunked your bullshit.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ea32...-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks

Another big difference is that Powell's charity is a typical private charity; it raises money, then grants that money to hopefully deserving groups who do the actual ground work. The Clinton Family Foundation is somewhat of a black hole; money comes in, . . . . , big profit.


Huma Abedin worked simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Family Foundation, and a lobbying firm. So while her actions often looked like corruption, you just had to realize which invisible hat she was wearing at the moment.

 

[werepossum]

Funny how you spread bullshit despite having commented in a thread that debunked your bullshit.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ea32...-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks

Hey, it's crunch time now. Four stars or facing eight years of unending IRS audits and leaks is an easy choice.

 

[Jhhnn]

Another big difference is that Powell's charity is a typical private charity; it raises money, then grants that money to hopefully deserving groups who do the actual ground work. The Clinton Family Foundation is somewhat of a black hole; money comes in, . . . . , big profit.

Which explains the top rating from charity watchdog groups in what way, exactly?

Huma Abedin worked simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Family Foundation, and a lobbying firm. So while her actions often looked like corruption, you just had to realize which invisible hat she was wearing at the moment.

Standard innuendo, huh? There's no legal inhibition against that & similar situations have likely occurred many times in the history of the nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin#Criticism

 

[dank69]

So your complaint is about the job performance of the media and picking on poor Hillary instead of the State Department engaging in pay to play under at least 2 different administrations? Glad to see where your priorities lie.

No, just pointing out another nail in the coffin of the tired assertion by perpetual conservative victims that the media is biased in favor of liberals.

 

[glenn1]

No, just pointing out another nail in the coffin of the tired assertion by perpetual conservative victims that the media is biased in favor of liberals.

Some media is biased in favor of liberals, others in favor of conservatives. Even the New York Times omsbudsman will agree that their paper has a political lean. The real point people should be addressing is whether politics of a media source's viewpoint crosses the line into outright advocacy and whether the source seeks to actively compensate in other direction to deflect charges of bias. While I'd like media sources to be equally adversarial to both sides I'd settle for them indulge in small amounts of it rather than ignore important stories because they're worried about charges of bias. For example, the National Enquirer should not have been the media organization to break the news of Gary Hart's affair, or John Edwards' mistress, or Rush Limbaugh's drug habit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/o...s-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html

 

[dank69]

Some media is biased in favor of liberals, others in favor of conservatives. Even the New York Times omsbudsman will agree that their paper has a political lean. The real point people should be addressing is whether politics of a media source's viewpoint crosses the line into outright advocacy and whether the source seeks to actively compensate in other direction to deflect charges of bias. While I'd like media sources to be equally adversarial to both sides I'd settle for them indulge in small amounts of it rather than ignore important stories because they're worried about charges of bias. For example, the National Enquirer should not have been the media organization to break the news of Gary Hart's affair, or John Edwards' mistress, or Rush Limbaugh's drug habit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/o...s-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html

Okay so why didn't any liberal media outlets dig into Powell's charity? Why didn't any mainstream outlets that are constantly accused of being liberally biased by conservatives dig into it?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Okay so why didn't any liberal media outlets dig into Powell's charity? Why didn't any mainstream outlets that are constantly accused of being liberally biased by conservatives dig into it?

When Colin Powell runs for President you will have your answer. Colin Powell is not in the political spotlight, and many have a favorable opinion of him. Hillary Clinton on several occasions during her email scandal attempted to divert the conversation and attention to Colin Powell, but to no avail as the media didn't bite.

Deflection is not a defense.

 

[dank69]

When Colin Powell runs for President you will have your answer. Colin Powell is not in the political spotlight, and many have a favorable opinion of him. Hillary Clinton on several occasions during her email scandal attempted to divert the conversation and attention to Colin Powell, but to no avail as the media didn't bite.

Deflection is not a defense.

For the third time, Clinton was under the spotlight back when she was still Secretary. Why wasn't Powell under the spotlight when he was Secretary?

 

[glenn1]

For the third time, Clinton was under the spotlight back when she was still Secretary. Why wasn't Powell under the spotlight when he was Secretary?

Because the news media wants to spend their time and resources investigating what they deem newsworthy and will attract viewers and advertising revenue in turn.

Evidently they collectively decided it wasn't newsworthy because Powell had a good public perception of honesty and that it would not generate views/ revenue if they did investigate and run such a story.

Likewise it seems they collectively arrived at opposite conclusions for Hillary since she is not widely seen as trustworthy and people would tune into a news story about her foundation's practices.

I'm unsure why you find this baffling. It's for much the same reason that Kaepernick not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance was news but it would not be if the seat usher did the same thing. People care about one but not the other, you ought to appreciate that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

For the third time, Clinton was under the spotlight back when she was still Secretary. Why wasn't Powell under the spotlight when he was Secretary?

He was. Powell took a lot of fire for the invasion of Iraq and that probably ended his political aspirations if he had any.

Prior to Benghazi i dont recall Clinton receiving much attention as SOS, and Benghazi only blew up as something to exploit in an election year.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol do you even read what you've typed? The media only covers what will bring in viewers and advertising? That's the definition of a double standard!

Because the news media wants to spend their time and resources investigating what they deem newsworthy and will attract viewers and advertising revenue in turn.

Evidently they collectively decided it wasn't newsworthy because Powell had a good public perception of honesty and that it would not generate views/ revenue if they did investigate and run such a story.

Likewise it seems they collectively arrived at opposite conclusions for Hillary since she is not widely seen as trustworthy and people would tune into a news story about her foundation's practices.

I'm unsure why you find this baffling. It's for much the same reason that Kaepernick not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance was news but it would not be if the seat usher did the same thing. People care about one but not the other, you ought to appreciate that.

 

[glenn1]

Lol do you even read what you've typed? The media only covers what will bring in viewers and advertising? That's the definition of a double standard!

I don't think you truly know the definition of double standard is then. You might call it unfair, or biased towards sensationalist news over substance, or similar charges. But I certainly don't see where it's a double standard.

 

[rudder]

Okay so why didn't any liberal media outlets dig into Powell's charity? Why didn't any mainstream outlets that are constantly accused of being liberally biased by conservatives dig into it?

I don't recall Colin Powell's wife going to Russia and earning $500,000 for a 30 minute speech followed by multimillion dollar payments to Powell's charity while the Russians had business in front of the state department.

 

[rudder]

Another Hillary lie...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ndation-emails-trust-edit-20160811-story.html

I am sure we can all believe her when she says she will halt fundraising if she is president. Her loyal turds will believe her anyway and she will continue to have her pay to play scheme going on.

I believe Obama kept quiet because he sees an opportunity to further screw America as a Supreme Court justice courtesy of hillary. As if flooding the country will illegals and doubling the national debt was not enough damage.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think you truly know the definition of double standard is then. You might call it unfair, or biased towards sensationalist news over substance, or similar charges. But I certainly don't see where it's a double standard.

Lol! You've gone full retard.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double standard

 

[glenn1]

Lol! You've gone full retard.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double standard

Sigh. You're confusing a double standard the audience might have with one the news media might have. Why do you think the media produces a shitload of stupid comedies and Fast and Furious #nnn movies instead of Shakespeare and operas? Because people watch the former and don't watch the later. I'm sorry you're mad that nobody gives a shit about Collin Powell's foundation and perhaps gives too many shits about the Clinton's foundation, but it's hardly the media's fault or double standard. The media wants to make money and putting on stories about a perceived scandal-monger like Clinton generates clicks.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't recall Colin Powell's wife going to Russia and earning $500,000 for a 30 minute speech followed by multimillion dollar payments to Powell's charity while the Russians had business in front of the state department.

Bill made a lot of money giving a lot of speeches, not just in Russia-

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...hecking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

Your point is what, anyway?