Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton's Campaign Creates Way To Make Money From Donald Trump's Tweets (adweek.com)
Hillary Clinton's campaign has created a new fundraising tool called Troll Trump that lets supporters sign up to automatically donate money to the campaign when Donald Trump tweets. Adweek reports: The tool's landing page populates a new Trump tweet each time the site is refreshed to offer a sampling of the candidate's social media style. "Show Donald that his unhinged rhetoric comes at a cost," according to the Clinton campaign's website. "Sign up to donate to Hillary's campaign every time Donald tweets!" The idea was apparently inspired by a tweet by Matt Bellassai, a former BuzzFeed editor and social media star, who made a joke on Twitter threatening to donate to the campaign every time Trump tweets. (When the tool went live, Teddy Goff, a digital strategist with the Clinton campaign, tweeted Bellassai a thank-you.)
Bilk? They have to sign up for it.
But nice, stupid try.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Whereas Trump has settled multiple lawsuits using charity money.
http://people.com/crime/donald-trump-used-money-from-charity-to-settle-lawsuits-report/
Although in more recent 7 years he hasn't used charity money at all for ANY donations, instead just using it for his own expenses:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html
You do realize that he's committed *actual* criminal offenses don't you? Perhaps you should avoid mentioning charities, that's a big minefield for your guy Trump.
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity. The bulk of every dollar is overhead
That's based on a misreading of the Foundation's tax forms.
TL;DR: The foundation does provide only a small percentage of its donations in the form of grants. But that does not mean that the rest goes to overhead. The overwhelming majority of its funds are spent directly on programs and services that benefit the intended recipients. Only 10 to 20 percent is spent on fundraising and other overhead. That puts it on par with the best charities out there.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You do realize that the Saudis have given tons of money to the Clintons too, right?
And many millions of those donations weren't even for helping children in Africa, they were for letting the Clintons build a monument to themselves, the Clinton Presidential Library, which makes it even worse.
Yes, the Saudis gave about $10 million for the Clinton Presidential Library. But they gave the same amount for George H. W. Bush's library.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
"Is it interesting that the Clinton Foundation has no measurable results?"
Wot? Not even bought a giant portrait of Hillary, like the Donald did with his illegal 'charity'?
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity.
Politifact rates that statement: false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Well, people who know about how charities work seem impressed by it, and it doesn't "lobby" for good causes, it provides grants for them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I recall the same people attacking Clinton for accepting donations from the Saudis now were going out of their way to buy bland, boring, breaded chicken a few years ago because the CEO of the company that sold it had been funding a group that promotes laws that mandate the death penalty for homosexuality in various African countries.
So: taking money from bad people who do bad things to gays and donating to worthy causes is bad to them. But giving money to bad people who lobby to get bad things done to gays is, apparently totally A-OK.
Just so you understand the mentality here. If Saudi Arabia was doing exactly what it is now, but under the sign of the cross, they'd be celebrating it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You do understand that the Clinton foundation proves only a small percentage to an actual charity. The bulk of every dollar is overhead
Where "small percentage" is 86.9%?