Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:45 AM Oct 2015

About that AFT for Hillary thing... had been made long before it was announced in July.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/06/american-federation-teachers-union-spends-37m-on-politics/

Snip: Other expenditures suggest AFT’s decision to endorse Weingarten’s friend Hillary Clinton for president — a move that angered many AFT members — had been made long before it was announced in July.

AFT donated $250,000 to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in February, $125,000 to Clinton Global Initiative in April and another $125,000 to Clinton Global Initiative in May. In December, AFT paid Clinton-allied opposition research group American Bridge 21st Century $100,000.

The American Bridge payment was reported as a political expense. The payments to the scandal-ridden Clinton family nonprofits were not.

Click for more from Watchdog.org: http://watchdog.org/240956/aft-union-politics-2015/
44 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
About that AFT for Hillary thing... had been made long before it was announced in July. (Original Post) Omaha Steve Oct 2015 OP
FAUX News stirring the pot and Sanders supporters with their spoons ready. Metric System Oct 2015 #1
Watchdog gets Hillary users to quote it often Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #3
Seems you were the first on this thread with your knife. eom Fawke Em Oct 2015 #6
I haven't read it yet. Why don't you simply refute anything that is not true in the article? You sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #7
One percent of the membership complained. 99 percent aren't having any issue. MADem Oct 2015 #26
Source or link? Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #34
Fox news? Really? hrmjustin Oct 2015 #2
Please see Reply 7. merrily Oct 2015 #17
Apparently I have too many people on ignore Flying Squirrel Oct 2015 #24
If you can see my post, but not the post of sabrina 1, I don't know what to say. merrily Oct 2015 #25
I probably can't see hers because of who she was replying to. Flying Squirrel Oct 2015 #32
Good to know! merrily Oct 2015 #37
Watchdog.org is a propaganda arm of the far right wing Franklin Center. nt MADem Oct 2015 #28
Yet the numbers they quote are from the US Dept. of Labor Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #33
I think you'll find that many of these endorsements were pledged after she lost in 2008. frylock Oct 2015 #4
those pesky watchdog people restorefreedom Oct 2015 #5
You place credence in watchdog.org? That probably says way more about you than you intended. MADem Oct 2015 #29
i was speaking generically restorefreedom Oct 2015 #35
"The scandal-ridden Clinton family non-profits" emulatorloo Oct 2015 #8
+1. Exactly. n/t FSogol Oct 2015 #10
10% spent on good works seems low questionseverything Oct 2015 #12
Why are you repeating falsehoods propagated by Rush Limbaugh? MADem Oct 2015 #30
more debunking debunked questionseverything Oct 2015 #39
Are you supporting O'Malley? merrily Oct 2015 #18
Bernie emulatorloo Oct 2015 #40
The source is rather dispicable. Watchdog dot org affects a "nonpartisan" stance, but all their MADem Oct 2015 #27
I wonder; who was the alerter? Hmmm.... pipoman Oct 2015 #9
Good for the jury. Knee jerk source shaming does not refute a thing. merrily Oct 2015 #19
scraping the bottom of the barrel moobu2 Oct 2015 #11
All the financial report info is correct, even on Watchdog & Faux Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #13
When you are in a hole stop digging. Find better sources. emulatorloo Oct 2015 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #42
Scraping the bottom of the right wing barrel, too. Watchdog.org has a far right wing lean. MADem Oct 2015 #31
Rec'd and bookmarked. Thanks n/t Catherina Oct 2015 #14
Why wouldn't they support the presumptive nominee moobu2 Oct 2015 #15
Bernie is ahead of Obama at this point in 2007 (edited) Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #16
If true, too bad. He has a better chance to win the general than she does. merrily Oct 2015 #20
Because there is not and should not be any "presumptive nominee" pipoman Oct 2015 #21
Clearly, a strong relationship exists between Weingarten and the Clintons and that was the merrily Oct 2015 #22
... making a list, And checking it twice; Babel_17 Oct 2015 #23
the Clintons forsake people olddots Oct 2015 #36
Thank you for your helpful link to Fox News. MineralMan Oct 2015 #38
Actually, the great information was from watchdog... MrMickeysMom Oct 2015 #43
Not that anyone cares, but AFT and CGI Starry Messenger Oct 2015 #44

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
7. I haven't read it yet. Why don't you simply refute anything that is not true in the article? You
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:52 AM
Oct 2015

didn't do that, does that mean it is true?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
26. One percent of the membership complained. 99 percent aren't having any issue.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:10 AM
Oct 2015

Of course, you won't hear those figures because they kind of ruin the narrative.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
25. If you can see my post, but not the post of sabrina 1, I don't know what to say.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 02:28 AM
Oct 2015

She's a far more patient and temperate poster than I.

Anyway, the point was to refute instead of just complaining about the source.

Thing is, when it comes to unions, OS really knows what he is talking about. I assumed that everyone who has been on DU a while knew that. Censoring solid information is not a good thing for anyone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=651745

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
33. Yet the numbers they quote are from the US Dept. of Labor
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 05:58 AM
Oct 2015

I must have really pissed off the invite only room of Hillary fans. Still can't handle the info on $ from AFT to Clinton charity that is correct from Watchdog.org?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
29. You place credence in watchdog.org? That probably says way more about you than you intended.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:28 AM
Oct 2015

Conservative, libertarian, anti-union, anti-abortion....yeah, that's a great outfit to associate oneself with... not.

restorefreedom
5. those pesky watchdog people
View profile
don't they realize this has been preordained?

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
35. i was speaking generically
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 07:32 AM
Oct 2015

about watchdog styled groups. however, since you mentioned it, is the reported payment info inaccurate? i would imagine that the dates of payments made and how they were reported is pretty straightfoward info to get.

and just because you or i might not like the agenda or viewpoints of an organization doesn't necessarily mean they are providing unfactual info.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
8. "The scandal-ridden Clinton family non-profits"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:01 PM
Oct 2015

Tells me everything I need to know about your source.

- "Clinton Cash" book which claimed "scandals" was quickly debunked as half-truths and lies.
- Karl Rove 101: attack your opponents strengths. That's why Kerry was made out to be a coward in Vietnam, and that's why Clinton Global Initiative, which does good work, is being smeared.

Look I don't support HRC, but I really detest right-wing smears against Democrats.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
12. 10% spent on good works seems low
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:38 PM
Oct 2015

One of the mantras one must invoke when discussing the Clinton Cash controversy is to say that whatever one might think of the pay-to-play aspects of the former first family’s charitable endeavors, the Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work around the world. But now that more of the press is finally asking tough questions about the Clintons’ activities, it appears that their charity may not pass the basic question donors ask of any philanthropy: how much of the money raised is actually spent on the causes you are supposed to be aiding? Though the foundation has claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures are spent on good deeds, their own tax filings reveal that the real number is about ten percent. But far from being an unrelated, albeit embarrassing, sidebar to the allegations about influence peddling, this data is a reminder that the main point of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is to support its namesakes in a lavish fashion and to allow wealthy donors access to them.

///////////////////

i am also a little shocked about $600,000 teacher dollars going to the clintons too

MADem

(135,425 posts)
30. Why are you repeating falsehoods propagated by Rush Limbaugh?
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:38 AM
Oct 2015
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/


As we noted earlier, many foundations carry out charitable works by giving money to other organizations that, in turn, do the ground-level charity work, whereas the Clinton foundation’s charitable works are mostly done by people on the foundation’s payroll. "We are an implementing organization rather than a grantmaking organization," said the foundation’s Minassian. That’s why the Clinton Foundation’s 990s show a relatively small amount of money categorized as "grants" -- only about 10 percent of all expenses in 2013.


The foundation says its own employees are doing its charitable work. The annual report -- which, remember, includes both the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative -- says that 7 percent of expenditures were spent on "management and expenses" and 4.5 percent for "fundraising." (The numbers on the 990s for the two entities are in the same ballpark.)

Add those two percentages together and you get almost 12 percent; subtract that from 100 percent and you get the magic 88 percent figure the foundation cited.

An independent academic CPA who specializes in nonprofit foundation finances said Limbaugh’s error was in assuming that all spending beyond grants amounted to wasteful overhead. ....To offer some context, spending 88 percent of expenses on charitable programs, as the Clinton foundation says it does, would actually be pretty good by industry standards. Parsons said the average reported across all organizations in the National Center for Charitable Statistics is 81 percent -- equal to the Clinton Foundation’s rate on its own -- and the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance suggests a minimum of 65 percent. "The foundation exceeds that," Parsons said.


....The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
39. more debunking debunked
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 11:40 AM
Oct 2015

The foundation’s “business model” is that rather than raise money to give to those helping the poor on the ground, its alleged charitable acts are done by those on its payroll. Fair enough. But the controversy here is that the foundation and its liberal apologists want us to think that when the Clintons and their staff scurry around the world talking about helping the poor that amounts to charity.

This is not a made-up argument about how to characterize expenditures. The Clintons don’t feed the hungry or clothe the poor. They are conveners of famous and smart people who supposedly brainstorm about how to do those things. They call this “life-changing” work and no doubt it does some good. But the only ones whose lives we can be certain have been “changed” are the Clintons, their cronies, and their staff. Most of the hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the foundation yearly is spent on salaries, travel, offices, and other perks. The Clinton Foundation is the ultimate “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” reality show cloaked in a veneer of good intentions and charitable rhetoric. But it is not much of a charity.

////////////////////////

my problem remains why is the teachers union donating to the clintons at all?

and if they are doing it without their members approval it is a huge problem

merrily

(45,251 posts)
18. Are you supporting O'Malley?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:10 PM
Oct 2015

I did not think the Clinton foundation allegations were debunked. First, there is no question that they had misreported their income from foreign sources. Second a statement like "No evidence of a quid pro quo" is not a debunking.

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
40. Bernie
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:58 PM
Oct 2015
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=27641

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=politifact

If people around here want to jump in bed with The Koch's, Mr. Murdoch, and Mr. Limbaugh, so be it.

Not me though, and I seriously doubt Bernie will either. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. The source is rather dispicable. Watchdog dot org affects a "nonpartisan" stance, but all their
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:24 AM
Oct 2015

articles talk about how shitty "leftists" are, how the Pope is wrong on climate change, 'justice for Wisconsin conservatives' and things like that. They are affiliated with the Franklin Center, and on that website, they post Watchdog's latest headlines, which I will copy/paste here-this does not sound like a liberal outfit to me:

THE LATEST FROM WATCHDOG

Idaho lawmakers, officials unwilling to disclose sponsors for posh weekend getaway
October 06, 2015
Meet this feisty forklift driver fighting for the right to leave her union
October 06, 2015
The silence of the left is the Dems’ transparency hypocrisy
October 06, 2015
Here’s proof energy efficiency subsidies don’t necessarily lower energy costs
October 06, 2015
Federal judge will hear D.C. charter school case on equitable funding
October 06, 2015
Paid sick leave a cynical issue for 2016
October 06, 2015
Hotel workers propose strict regulations on these homeowners
October 06, 2015
AFSCME says Rauner trying to end step increases
- See more at: http://franklincenterhq.org/#sthash.zv1rQgz8.dpuf

Then check out the board of directors....


Mary Beth Weiss has engaged in the free market, limited government movement for decades. She and her husband Dick donate to numerous conservative and libertarian organizations that share their mission of preserving freedom and liberty. Mary Beth is proud to represent donors’ interest on the boards of the Franklin Center, American Commitment, El Sueno Americano and For the Good of Illinois. She is a life time resident of the Chicago metro area and currently splits her time visiting family across the heartland, traveling internationally and managing their California avocado ranch. - See more at: http://franklincenterhq.org/invest/board-of-directors/#sthash.94IIHuBG.dpuf


....

Jack Fowler serves as publisher for National Review, America’s premier conservative magazine. He has been with the magazine twenty-five years, where he was first hired in 1990 to serve as a congressional correspondent in Washington, D.C. Before that, he was managing editor for The Human Life Review, a journal published by the pro-life Human Life Foundation. A Bronx native, he is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and lives in Connecticut. - See more at: http://franklincenterhq.org/invest/board-of-directors/#sthash.94IIHuBG.dpuf




This website is neither liberal nor progressive--I think they run a few false flag type articles to lure people in, but this is just some wingnut tripe here.
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
9. I wonder; who was the alerter? Hmmm....
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:26 PM
Oct 2015

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:55 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

About that AFT for Hillary thing... had been made long before it was announced in July.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251651016

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Watchdog.org is a network of American news websites that feature reporting on state and local government from a conservative perspective." And foxnews? This is what we are going to attack Democratic candidates with here at DU? This is ridiculous and completely inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:13 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't find it "out of line" to be able to read and dig into posts that provide a window into what "information" and "facts" are being used to influence opinions - be they true or false
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Despite its source, the post raises legitimate issues and does so in a an unbiased way.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Fox News not a reliable source for the day of the week.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why don't you address the veracity of the post? Ohhhh....because it's true? Yeah, no.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, why didn't you answer the post with your alert message instead of calling out a jury to do your work for you? Because you don't like a messenger doesn't mean the message is wrong.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
13. All the financial report info is correct, even on Watchdog & Faux
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:58 PM
Oct 2015

The conclusion the AFT endorsement was made long ago then seems fair.

In GD-P: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251651745

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #41)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
31. Scraping the bottom of the right wing barrel, too. Watchdog.org has a far right wing lean.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 03:49 AM
Oct 2015

Ironically, they are ANTI-UNION, too...!!!!

Who knew that public employee unions 'hurt' private sector workers?

Who knew that a 'Bernie Sanders backer FORCED employees to pay union dues?'

Who knew that Right To Work laws made unions 'better?'


You can learn all that happy horseshit, and MORE, at Watchdog.Org. You can also learn, simply by perusing this thread, which people who frequent this site will throw all judgment, all integrity, all reason, under the bus if it means someone is dissing Hillary Clinton.

This is probably the most outrageous example I've seen, oh, today. But I see this kind of nonsense all the time lately, and it makes the website look like Yahoo.

moobu2

(4,822 posts)
15. Why wouldn't they support the presumptive nominee
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:05 PM
Oct 2015

Bernie wont ever be the nominee and most people realize that.

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
16. Bernie is ahead of Obama at this point in 2007 (edited)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:11 PM
Oct 2015

Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)



Need I say more?

Edit: Labor unions hold back on endorsements for Hillary: http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/252823-labor-unions-hold-back-on-endorsements-for-hillary

Labor leaders are “playing hard to get” with Hillary Clinton in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Many of the nation’s top unions are sitting on the sidelines, content to let Clinton sweat it out while they withhold endorsements.

Some labor officials are frustrated with Clinton for not coming to their aid in the fight over trade legislation in Congress, while others are skeptical of her commitment to their issues.

The face of the labor movement, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, has not endorsed Clinton while seemingly courting her biggest rivals in the Democratic primaries: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Vice President Biden, who is weighing a run for president.

FULL story at link.

The AFT is a member of and is the largest member of the AFL-CIO. That means they pay a per capita on every member. Meanwhile the AFL-CIO is asking all groups not to endorse ANYONE yet.

OS
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
21. Because there is not and should not be any "presumptive nominee"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:16 PM
Oct 2015

At this point in the race....historically, the leader at this point in the process doesn't get the nomination. Now is the time for complete vetting of the nominee....this is vetting...

merrily

(45,251 posts)
22. Clearly, a strong relationship exists between Weingarten and the Clintons and that was the
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:17 PM
Oct 2015

basis for the donations--and for jumping the gun.

Seems as though the Clintons are calling in every chit they have; and they have been collecting chits for decades.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
38. Thank you for your helpful link to Fox News.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:35 AM
Oct 2015

I'm sure they will have plenty of great information about Democratic candidates.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»About that AFT for Hillar...