JCMan8 wrote:
Nate Silver blew it in the primaries, when he gave Trump something like a 2% chance of winning despite him leading in all the polls.

Surprisingly he was fine for the general election, giving him around a 30% chance to win. Not seeing any problems with that.

SOS on the other hand...just lol.

SOS wrote:
Nate Silver Blew It Bigly on the Election ? Can His Brand Recover?

?Nate was arrogant. His numbers were all over the place. The title of ?guru? is now gone,? media pundit Joe Concha tells TheWrap

Brian Flood | November 9, 2016 @ 4:05 PM

In 2012, when Mitt Romney seemed close to defeating President Obama, Democrats took to tweeting the slogan ?Keep Calm and Trust in Nate Silver.?

The New York Times prognosticator called all 50 states correctly, and leveraged his fame as the nation?s predictor-in-chief into a new role at ESPN, where he founded the site FiveThirtyEight.

But after Thursday?s win for Donald Trump, the days of trusting in Nate Silver may be over. Most pollsters and data journalists were wrong, too. But none have his reputation to live up to.

?Nate was arrogant. His numbers were all over the place. The title of ?guru? is now gone,? The Hill media reporter Joe Concha told TheWrap. He said Silver?s career will survive, but ?never again will he be held in any revered regard.?


On Monday, Silver predicted that Trump had a 1-in-3 chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. Some other pundits thought Silver was being too generous: Huffington Post Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim accused him of ?putting his thumb on the scales? to give Trump a better chance of wining.

(Grim tweeted an apology to Silver on Election Night, saying there was ?far more uncertainty than we were accounting for.?)

By Tuesday morning, Silver?s site reported that Clinton had a 71.4 percent chance of winning the election.
That was a huge improvement over his numbers earlier in the year: Back in January, Silver couldn?t make up his mind on where Trump stood.

?I don?t think his chances are zero. You have to be very careful about saying they?re zero, but I think they?re lower than 20 [percent] or 25 percent. Maybe they?re 10 percent. Maybe they?re 8 percent. I?m not sure, somewhere in that range,? Silver told Adweek.

The credibility questions arrive at an odd time for FiveThirtyEight.

ESPN shut down Grantland, its sports and pop culture website, abruptly in 2015 after the company had a nasty split with its founder, Bill Simmons. Grantland had a niche fan base and a staff of extremely talented writers ? just like FiveThirtyEight.

But Grantland was relevant every day, while nobody will care about presidential polling for at least three years. FiveThirtyEight has branched out in other ways, covering sports data and even ranking burritos, so it clearly won?t limit itself to politics.

Silver is the face of the data reporting, which had been seen as one of the only growth sectors in journalism. After this election, the threat to it may go well beyond one site.

?I?ve believed in data for 30 years in politics and data died tonight,? GOP strategist Mike Murphy tweeted. ?I could not have been more wrong about this election.?

More than 16.5 million unique users, an all-time record, visited FiveThirtyEight on Election Night.

http://www.thewrap.com/nate-silver-bl ... on-can-his-brand-recover/

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

I made a bad prediction based on foolish/flawed polling methods.

And you conveniently ignored 538's poll because you wanted to bury your head in the sand. I didn't even vote for Trump but you were being foolish.

LOL 538 called the election wrong too. His site goes back to his roots - baseball statistics. Silver needs to generate interest 365 days a year. And as it turns out Clinton may squeak by with winning the popular vote. There are several good post-mortem analysis articles of how the polls were wrong - which I won't be posting. If you want to continue your foolish discussion, knock yourself out, but I'm going to move on.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

I made a bad prediction based on foolish/flawed polling methods.

And you conveniently ignored 538's poll because you wanted to bury your head in the sand. I didn't even vote for Trump but you were being foolish.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

I made a bad prediction based on foolish/flawed polling methods.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

I think Trump is a disaster but you're a fool if you don't think Trump doesn't have a chance at winning.

538 has him at 33% right now. Wake up and pay attention.

The race is getting tighter, more excitement I guess but fundamentals are the same. Trump will lose.

http://election.princeton.edu/
Nate Silver - 538 has sold out to get page hits in my opinion.
But on Tuesday night I'll be consuming some alcohol...

SOS wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

I made a bad prediction based on foolish/flawed polling methods.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

It wasn't a once in a lifetime upset for 538. How do you explain that?

You made a foolish prediction before the election, that's it.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

Yup that's what happens with once in a lifetime upsets. Sam Wang PhD didn't get it right either. http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11 ... i-senate-seats-gop-house/

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

So much for that prognostication.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

And never a truer word spoken about Hillary.

Do you honestly believe that Trump will win?

Not sure what the point of the question is about. I am voting against Hillary , both her public face and her private face.

Nearly every policy position she espouses is wrong Her job is to keep Wall Street happy, If Bill , Hillary and Chelsea can just skim a little bit of the global trillion dollar scam while selling out America, no problem.

After all they feel they are enlightened and entitled to it all. And a vote for them enables their narcissism and corruption.

I'm concerned that Trump supporters are deluded into believing that he has a real shot at winning. It isn't going to happen, unless something huge drops this weekend. Anything is possible in this election.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Hillary Clinton said the Clinton Foundation gives ?90% of their proceeds? to charitable organizations. This is their ?Form 990?, required by the IRS for all charities. In 2013, they had total revenue of $148,889,439 (Line 12). Their TOTAL Grants to Charity were $8,865,052 (Line 13). That is a measly 5.95%!!!!! Now, they are so efficient that it cost them a total of $84,684,494 in expenses (Line 18) to give away $8,865,052 to charity!!!! Including $29,914,108 in salaries (Line 15), $185,970 in fundraising fees (Line 16a, that?s actually legitimate), and a WHOPPING $45,719,364 (Line 17) in ?other expenses?!!!!! So AFTER all that hard charitable work, they end the year with $247,299,458 (Line 22), a cool $100,000,000 more than was contributed for the year!!! Folks, no matter how you slice and dice it, this is simply a blatant money laundering program. They don?t even try to hide it!!! Oh, and Congress wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the DOJ stepped in and blocked it!

It blows my mind how otherwise intelligent people can swallow the alt right bs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/wher ... nton-foundation-money-go/

...We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services ? $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses....

Any mention of how much went to pay for Chelsea's wedding... you don't think Bill and Hillary would have paid for it?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea- ... p-pay-for-wedding-emails/

FactCheck.org is phony "non-partisan" group funded by George Soros. The fact is CFS rarely files appropriate paperwork required by law on time and unless they pushed.

When they do file something, it usually turns out to be filled with lies or with information left out. The initial filing goes on the public record and then months later they file an amendment to "correct the math error or omission in reporting a donor" The filing FactCheck reviewed was a lie to begin with and they help spread disinformation.

Do you also have issues with Charity Navigator? It gives the Clinton Foundation a 4-star rating (its best rating):
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index ... earch.summary&orgid=16680

Don't have an opinion on that Charity site... except to say, once again this site is dependent on CFS 990s and CFS website for their information to assess.

Looking at CFS... Admin Expenses are 3X what most charities are... no controls on CEO Compensation, which probably means Board Members too.... additionally

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news ... ation-re-files-form-990s/

With that track record... anything they file should be suspect, which is why the FBI is being restricted from taking a deep dive into the CFS by Lynch and Obama.

I especially like how they did not report revenue from speeches.

You don't have to trust the CFS. That's why 501c3s and 990s are audited by external firms (PwC)

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Hillary Clinton said the Clinton Foundation gives ?90% of their proceeds? to charitable organizations. This is their ?Form 990?, required by the IRS for all charities. In 2013, they had total revenue of $148,889,439 (Line 12). Their TOTAL Grants to Charity were $8,865,052 (Line 13). That is a measly 5.95%!!!!! Now, they are so efficient that it cost them a total of $84,684,494 in expenses (Line 18) to give away $8,865,052 to charity!!!! Including $29,914,108 in salaries (Line 15), $185,970 in fundraising fees (Line 16a, that?s actually legitimate), and a WHOPPING $45,719,364 (Line 17) in ?other expenses?!!!!! So AFTER all that hard charitable work, they end the year with $247,299,458 (Line 22), a cool $100,000,000 more than was contributed for the year!!! Folks, no matter how you slice and dice it, this is simply a blatant money laundering program. They don?t even try to hide it!!! Oh, and Congress wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the DOJ stepped in and blocked it!

It blows my mind how otherwise intelligent people can swallow the alt right bs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/wher ... nton-foundation-money-go/

...We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services ? $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses....

Any mention of how much went to pay for Chelsea's wedding... you don't think Bill and Hillary would have paid for it?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea- ... p-pay-for-wedding-emails/

FactCheck.org is phony "non-partisan" group funded by George Soros. The fact is CFS rarely files appropriate paperwork required by law on time and unless they pushed.

When they do file something, it usually turns out to be filled with lies or with information left out. The initial filing goes on the public record and then months later they file an amendment to "correct the math error or omission in reporting a donor" The filing FactCheck reviewed was a lie to begin with and they help spread disinformation.

Do you also have issues with Charity Navigator? It gives the Clinton Foundation a 4-star rating (its best rating):
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index ... earch.summary&orgid=16680

Don't have an opinion on that Charity site... except to say, once again this site is dependent on CFS 990s and CFS website for their information to assess.

Looking at CFS... Admin Expenses are 3X what most charities are... no controls on CEO Compensation, which probably means Board Members too.... additionally

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news ... ation-re-files-form-990s/

With that track record... anything they file should be suspect, which is why the FBI is being restricted from taking a deep dive into the CFS by Lynch and Obama.

I especially like how they did not report revenue from speeches.

MDM wrote:
Amish Trump supporter asks for 20 cars to help get the Amish to the Polls...

https://twitter.com/AMike4761/status/795722886636048385

Gets 1,500 volunteers.

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Hillary Clinton said the Clinton Foundation gives ?90% of their proceeds? to charitable organizations. This is their ?Form 990?, required by the IRS for all charities. In 2013, they had total revenue of $148,889,439 (Line 12). Their TOTAL Grants to Charity were $8,865,052 (Line 13). That is a measly 5.95%!!!!! Now, they are so efficient that it cost them a total of $84,684,494 in expenses (Line 18) to give away $8,865,052 to charity!!!! Including $29,914,108 in salaries (Line 15), $185,970 in fundraising fees (Line 16a, that?s actually legitimate), and a WHOPPING $45,719,364 (Line 17) in ?other expenses?!!!!! So AFTER all that hard charitable work, they end the year with $247,299,458 (Line 22), a cool $100,000,000 more than was contributed for the year!!! Folks, no matter how you slice and dice it, this is simply a blatant money laundering program. They don?t even try to hide it!!! Oh, and Congress wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the DOJ stepped in and blocked it!

It blows my mind how otherwise intelligent people can swallow the alt right bs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/wher ... nton-foundation-money-go/

...We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services ? $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses....

Any mention of how much went to pay for Chelsea's wedding... you don't think Bill and Hillary would have paid for it?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea- ... p-pay-for-wedding-emails/

FactCheck.org is phony "non-partisan" group funded by George Soros. The fact is CFS rarely files appropriate paperwork required by law on time and unless they pushed.

When they do file something, it usually turns out to be filled with lies or with information left out. The initial filing goes on the public record and then months later they file an amendment to "correct the math error or omission in reporting a donor" The filing FactCheck reviewed was a lie to begin with and they help spread disinformation.

Do you also have issues with Charity Navigator? It gives the Clinton Foundation a 4-star rating (its best rating):
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index ... earch.summary&orgid=16680

135jc wrote:
Quote:

dmankoff wrote:
My gosh, don't you Republicans ever tire of your own BS? Don't you have even an iota of integrity -- to check your 'facts' derived from the Alt Right alternative universe? Here's your BS, debunked on factcheck.org:


"Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that ?so little? of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation ?actually go to charitable works? ? a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues ? but Fiorina is simply wrong.

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation?s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation ? which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."

Apparently Chelsea's wedding was a charitable cause.

dmankoff wrote:
My gosh, don't you Republicans ever tire of your own BS? Don't you have even an iota of integrity -- to check your 'facts' derived from the Alt Right alternative universe? Here's your BS, debunked on factcheck.org:


"Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that ?so little? of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation ?actually go to charitable works? ? a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues ? but Fiorina is simply wrong.

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation?s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation ? which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Hillary Clinton said the Clinton Foundation gives ?90% of their proceeds? to charitable organizations. This is their ?Form 990?, required by the IRS for all charities. In 2013, they had total revenue of $148,889,439 (Line 12). Their TOTAL Grants to Charity were $8,865,052 (Line 13). That is a measly 5.95%!!!!! Now, they are so efficient that it cost them a total of $84,684,494 in expenses (Line 18) to give away $8,865,052 to charity!!!! Including $29,914,108 in salaries (Line 15), $185,970 in fundraising fees (Line 16a, that?s actually legitimate), and a WHOPPING $45,719,364 (Line 17) in ?other expenses?!!!!! So AFTER all that hard charitable work, they end the year with $247,299,458 (Line 22), a cool $100,000,000 more than was contributed for the year!!! Folks, no matter how you slice and dice it, this is simply a blatant money laundering program. They don?t even try to hide it!!! Oh, and Congress wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the DOJ stepped in and blocked it!

It blows my mind how otherwise intelligent people can swallow the alt right bs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/wher ... nton-foundation-money-go/

...We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services ? $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses....

Any mention of how much went to pay for Chelsea's wedding... you don't think Bill and Hillary would have paid for it?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea- ... p-pay-for-wedding-emails/

FactCheck.org is phony "non-partisan" group funded by George Soros. The fact is CFS rarely files appropriate paperwork required by law on time and unless they pushed.

When they do file something, it usually turns out to be filled with lies or with information left out. The initial filing goes on the public record and then months later they file an amendment to "correct the math error or omission in reporting a donor" The filing FactCheck reviewed was a lie to begin with and they help spread disinformation.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Hillary Clinton said the Clinton Foundation gives ?90% of their proceeds? to charitable organizations. This is their ?Form 990?, required by the IRS for all charities. In 2013, they had total revenue of $148,889,439 (Line 12). Their TOTAL Grants to Charity were $8,865,052 (Line 13). That is a measly 5.95%!!!!! Now, they are so efficient that it cost them a total of $84,684,494 in expenses (Line 18) to give away $8,865,052 to charity!!!! Including $29,914,108 in salaries (Line 15), $185,970 in fundraising fees (Line 16a, that?s actually legitimate), and a WHOPPING $45,719,364 (Line 17) in ?other expenses?!!!!! So AFTER all that hard charitable work, they end the year with $247,299,458 (Line 22), a cool $100,000,000 more than was contributed for the year!!! Folks, no matter how you slice and dice it, this is simply a blatant money laundering program. They don?t even try to hide it!!! Oh, and Congress wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation and the DOJ stepped in and blocked it!

It blows my mind how otherwise intelligent people can swallow the alt right bs.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/wher ... nton-foundation-money-go/

...We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services ? $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses....