Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Imagine the Screams From the Right If the Clintons Had Done This

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will reportedly pledge $100 million toward a fund for women entrepreneurs that was built by Ivanka Trump.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the World Bank’s Women Entrepreneurs Fund, an idea that the president's elder daughter proposed, will work to help women in the Middle East who want to start their own businesses.

The donation from Saudi Arabia and the UAE was set to be announced at a Sunday event with President Trump’s daughter, according to the report.
If the Clintons had done this, the Right would be frothing so much that they'd be hospitalized for possible hydrophobia.

Saying "but, but Clinton" is hypocrisy. Or it is a childish excuse on the level of screaming "but Maaaaa, Billy did it, too!"

If it was wrong for Clinton, then you can't normalize it by saying that makes it OK for Trump.

And anyone who believes that the Saudis really give a shit about women as entrepreneurs, and that this isn't a form of "pay to play" graft shouldn't be allowed out of the house without wearing a helmet.


B said...

No, Hillary would have gotten a "donation" to the Clinton Foundation.

I think you are imagining connections where there are none.

B said...

BTW, according to NPR, Ivanka isn't involved in the operation of the fund. SHe and Merkel were the "insiration".

SO that is the difference between her and Hillary, right there.


DTWND said...

B, I realize that you're putting your 'right' spin on this but really, wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that who is in the White House. The optics on this look wrong, bordering on bribery or corruption, or whatever you want to call it.


CenterPuke88 said...

Let's see...Ivanka Trump uses her access to the World Bank to establish a fund for women entrepreneurs. Then she happens to be visiting Saudi Arabia when they pledge $100 million to is fund. Hum, that's pretty clear buying access...and was the reason that the Republicans were demanding the Clinton Foundation be shutdown. Shoes on the other foot, and it's a great idea?

The primary difference between the two is that the Clinton's used connects once out of office to get things going, while the Trumpians are doing it IN office.

dinthebeast said...

The primary difference is that the Clinton Foundation provided antiretroviral drugs to people who would have died without them. Lots and lots of them.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

THe difference is that the Clintons profited from any donation to the Clinton Foundation, and the Trumps are not profiting from this, they have no access to, nor control the funds.

But, again, you have that double standard there....The Trumps doing something good = Bad Things, because Trump. Clinton doing something, and profiting from it, is ok, because democrat.

How, exactly, is this "buying access" when they can't get to the funds (even if they wanted to)?

Thomas Ten Bears said...

How about that bowing down to their rag-headed "king"? OK ok, it was more of a curtsey, but fokin' aeh, an American "President" bowing down to a pissamt king of a country that didn't exist a hundred years ago. An "American" bowing down to a "king".

dinthebeast said...

OK, B, how many lives have the Trumps saved with their foundation?
Let's just be real about this.

-Doug in Oakland

CenterPuke88 said...

Sorry, B., I forgot this is the "legal" Trump Charity, versus the one they had before that profited the Trumps and their businesses and wasn't even legal. My bad.

B said...

How many lives have Clintons saved? I dunno.
Vince Foster is unavailable for comment.

They've had quite a few years to do something, so i'd imagine the number is.....prolly still pretty low. The

IIRC, they use less than 20% of the Foundation money for good, the rest of the profits they made from the sales of their office they spend on themselves.

CenterPuke88 said...

88%=<20%, eh, B.? Dragging out Vince Foster, why not the latest GOP fever dream? Dragging rabid fantasies into discussions isn't that adult, something you leactured about recently. Stick to facts and provide the source of your <20% accusation, sir.

B said...


B said...


dinthebeast said...

In the millions.


-Doug in Oakland

B said...

Only 9 million? That is a rounding error for their kind of cash in the Foundation. Not that it is insignificant, mind you, and they did it in partnership with MPP, and the cost of the drugs has fallen across the board. But it is good work.

CenterPuke88 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Comrade Misfit said...

CP88, c'mon, man. That was 90% personal attack. Red card.