HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » pnwmom » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 79 Next »

pnwmom

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Jan 30, 2006, 06:07 PM
Number of posts: 103,180

Journal Archives

What the heck is the Clinton "Global Initiative"? What about those huge sums of money?

The Global Initiative is part of the Clinton Foundation, but it is not a charity and doesn't provide grants. It is an organization set up to help "leaders and visionaries" connect and inspire each other. It is an international networking and educational resource. To that end, the GI holds conferences around the world. Membership costs $20,000 per year, though there are "complementary memberships" to NGO's, non-profits and others who qualify. (So those who can afford the membership fee are subsidizing the complementary memberships.)

At these conferences, members make public commitments for projects in line with GI goals. But the GI doesn't supervise any of these projects or funnel any money related to these projects. It is just an educational and networking group for philanthropists, political leaders, and others who are working on projects in their own countries and with their own resources.

So those huge sums of money that are connected in the media with the Global Initiative never go to the Clinton Foundation at all. If someone makes a "commitment" or a "pledge" at a Global Initiative conference, that means that person is announcing a project he or she is conducting INDEPENDENTLY, which is in line with GI goals.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/about-us/cgi-model

CGI Model

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) convenes leaders to drive action through its unique model. Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action.



COMMITMENTS TO ACTION

CGI member commitments represent bold new ways to address global challenges – implemented through new methods of partnership and designed to maximize impact. Commitments can be small or large, global or local. No matter the size or scope, commitments help CGI members translate practical goals into meaningful and measurable results. To support the development of commitments among members, CGI facilitates conversations, provides opportunities to identify commitment partners, showcases the actions taken by commitment-makers, and communicates the results of the work.

To date, members of the CGI community have made more than 3,500 commitments which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.


INFORMATION ABOUT MEMBERS:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/membership/frequently-asked-questions

Since 2005, CGI Annual Meetings have convened more than 190 sitting and former heads of state, 21 Nobel Prize laureates, and hundreds of leading CEOs, heads of foundations and NGOs, major philanthropists, and prominent members of the media.

SNIP

While most organizations pay a membership fee to join, CGI also has complementary memberships. These are typically extended to NGOs, nonprofits, and social entrepreneurs who may not be able to afford membership but represent an important constituency or issue area and can bring a valuable voice to the collaborative and diverse CGI community.

BROAD AREAS OF WORK OR "TRACKS" THAT MEMBERS ARE INDIVIDUALLY INVOLVED WITH:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/about-us/tracks


THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

EDUCATION & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

FOOD SYSTEMS

GLOBAL HEALTH

MARKET-BASED APPROACHES

RESPONSE & RESILIENCE

TECHNOLOGY




___________________________________
CONNECTION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION:

The Global Initiative is a project of the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation itself is a charity that has been given an A rating by Charity Watch, and has been listed as one of Charity Watch's top charities for "Peace and International Relations."

clintonfoundation.org

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478






Hillary's latest email flap explained (it's a nothingburger)

http://mynorthwest.com/367832/clinton-email-second-amendment/?google_editors_picks=true

Clinton’s people explain that the billionaire, Mr. Chagoury wasn’t looking for a favor, but actually wanted to share information about Lebanon with the State Department.

Nancy Cordes says there’s also another email involving Doug Band from the Clinton Foundation, written to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

“Band reaches out in 2009 on behalf of a job seeker, writing that it is, ‘important to take care of (this person), whose name is redacted.’ Huma Abedin writes back, assuring Band that State Department personnel has been sending him options.”

But it turns out this unnamed job seeker was just a 20-something former Clinton staffer looking for work, not a rich donor looking for influence, and had nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.

So that’s the latest email story. I apologize if it wasn’t as interesting as the Trump Second Amendment quote or the guy suction-cupping his way up the Trump tower, but we do what we can.

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the "founder of ISIS" and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee's position.

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump objected.

"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/



I don't see in the article where the don actually used the word "literally." But CNN's headline writer clearly thought that was what he meant.

The conservative talk show interviewer and the don went back and forth over the use of the word "founder," with the don stubbornly clinging to it, rejecting the interviewers suggestion that a power vacuum after we withdrew from Iraq allowed ISIS to come in.

The article also points out that Trump himself supported an even earlier withdrawal from Iraq.

"You know how they get out? They get out," Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in 2007. "That's how they get out. Declare victory and leave, because I'll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They're in a civil war over there, Wolf. There's nothing that we're going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war."

And the article quotes a former US Ambassador to Russia who says that Trump's argument about Obama causing ISIS echoes Russian statements on the matter.

Trying to make America MALE again. Women control the ballot box,

and angry, sexist Trump voters just can't deal.

Women and those uppity minorities.

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/09/trying-to-make-america-male-again-women-control-the-ballot-box-and-angry-sexist-trump-voters-cant-deal/

Donald Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is drenched in layers of nostalgia. The slogan itself has been swiped from the schmaltz-fueled 1980 campaign for Ronald Reagan. The naked racism spewing from Trump suggests that the what he feels will return America to its mythical glory days is to embrace of the white supremacy of the past. His widespread support amongst bona fide white supremacists shores up this reading.

But this kind of nostalgia is also about gender, as the America of many decades ago was also one where men controlled the ballot box.

Women may have won the vote in 1920, but men were the majority of voters for the next six decades. That started to change in the early ’80s, when women started out-voting men. In 2012, 58.5% of women reported voting, compared to 54.4% of men. While most office holders are still men, women have quietly reshaped the nation’s political discourse.

The nomination of Trump — a loudmouthed misogynist who can’t seem to name a single talented woman besides his own daughter — can be understood in large part as a reaction to this trend, a temper tantrum thrown by angry men whose idea of making America great again means wresting control of it back from women.

SNIP

Looking over the past few decades, one of the dominant political trends — perhaps the dominant trend — is that women are flocking to the Democrats, pushing them to the left, and in reaction, the majority of men are running to the Republicans and pushing them to the right.

SNIP

Why "just joking" is not a defence.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/9/12417100/donald-trump-assassinate-hillary-clinton-joke

But in a certain sense, it doesn’t really matter what Trump intended. This tweetstorm, from Dallas lawyer Jason P. Steed, explains why.

Before becoming a lawyer, Steed was an English professor. He wrote his PhD dissertation on "the social function of humor" and found something important: Jokes about socially unacceptable things aren’t just "jokes." They serve a function of normalizing that unacceptable thing, of telling the people who agree with you that, yes, this is an okay thing to talk about.

This, Steed explains, is why "it’s a joke" isn’t a good defense of racist jokes. By telling the joke, the person is signaling that they think racism is an appropriate thing to express. "Just joking" is just what someone says to the people who don’t appreciate hearing racist stuff — it shouldn’t matter any more than saying "no offense" after saying something offensive.

Likewise, Trump is signaling that assassinating Hillary Clinton and/or her Supreme Court nominees is an okay thing to talk about. He’s normalizing the unacceptable.

Trump On Second Amendment Backlash: ‘I Think It’s A Good Thing For Me’

Source: Huffington Post

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Tuesday night he’s benefitting from the controversy he created earlier in the day by suggesting “the Second Amendment people” might forcefully stop Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton from appointing Supreme Court justices.

After an outcry from Democrats and gun-control advocates over remarks that appeared to obliquely encourage violence, Trump said he didn’t mean to suggest any harm. The real villains, he said on Fox News, were the media.

“I have to say, in terms of politics, there is few things, and I happen to think that if [the media] did even bring this up, I think it’s a good thing for me,” Trump told Sean Hannity.

“Because it’s going to tell people more about me with respect to the Second Amendment ... because Hillary Clinton wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment.”

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-second-amendment-backlash_us_57aaa702e4b0ba7ed23e2bf8



So he's going with the "any publicity is good publicity" theory.

White-bearded guy behind Trump instantly gets it.

So does his wife -- who thinks it's funny.

It doesn't matter what Trump MEANT. It matters what he SAID.

And, as Michael Hayden, former Bush CIA Director, pointed out today, it matters what others HEAR.

Wars have started over mistakes and misunderstandings. That's why Hillary's caution, her control, her "calculating" nature would be infinitely better suited for the office they are seeking.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-second-amendment-hillary-clinton-comment-2016-8

It doesn't really matter what Trump meant. It matters what he said — a reckless comment that might or might not be outrageous, depending on your interpretation. This has happened over and over during the campaign, and it would happen, with much higher stakes, during his presidency.

What the president says matters. Presidents' comments can move markets, create policy, inflame foreign tensions, even start wars. It is therefore important that presidents be careful.

Donald Trump is incapable of being careful. His loose talk is not a mere personality quirk and it is not refreshing — it is a reason he cannot handle the job of the presidency.

Voting without retching: beyond the lesser of two evils.

Surprise!

This is an article from 1980, subtitled: What to do if you can't stand Reagan or Carter.

Once upon a time many Dems thought Carter was just as bad as Reagan. Hard to imagine with the wisdom of hindsight.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/voting-without-retching-lesser-of-beyond-the-two-evils-19801016

On August 19th of this year, George Wald, emeritus professor of biology at Harvard and a recipient of the 1967 Nobel Prize for Medicine, wrote in a letter to the New York Times: "I have a suspicion approaching conviction that John Anderson's try for the presidency was invented by, or with the connivance of, the Trilateral Commission, to cut into the Democratic vote and so secure the election of Ronald Reagan." After much buttressing of this eccentric thesis, the professor concluded in the same terms: "I think John Anderson is the instrument designed by the Trilateral Commission to assure Reagan's election."

"Did you read that letter?" we asked Anderson.

Anderson rolled his eyes. "Oh my God! For a Nobel laureate! To write this preposterous....… I haven't even gone to a meeting for two or three years."

Trump's full comment today was more damning that what is being shown in edited clips

on CNN and elsewhere:

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment…By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”


He now says he was just speaking about political activism. Yeah, right.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 79 Next »