I suspect the Republicans will end up picking a moderate anyway, so you may be in luck. Could you vote for Jeb ?

No, I'm not that lucky. Though I must admit not knowing enough about Jeb Bush to make a decision for sure on him, and I'm locked out of that choice anyway, with an "unaffiliated" voter registration (I could change it at any time x# days before the "potomac primary"). If Jeb really is acceptably moderate, his handicap is his last name, likely. It's the exact opposite of Eddy Murphy's character in The Distinguished Gentleman: "The name you know!" No I doubt the GOP will pick a moderate. After eight years of Obama, the pendulum, following Newton's laws of motion but in politics, will swing just as hard to the right this time.

Without possessing your reservoir of knowledge on UK politics, it almost sounds as if your complaint is akin to some conservatives (in the movie about Margaret Thatcher, I am getting this from, not always the best place to get information you know?) about Ed Heath in the 1970's: uninspiring; perhaps not strong willed enough to do what needs to be done and tackle the country's problems? That sort of thing?

Not sure I could vote for Hillary though. She was dreadful as SoS and her entire pitch appears to be "vote for me, I have breasts !"

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Would Clinton be someone you could not vote for if these allegations are found to be true?

Yes, it is puzzling that there are not others...

Of course, but that's not saying much, since the chances I'd ever vote for her are probably as low as yours.

The book is not out yet, but allegedly there are 11 outlined instances of "coincidence."

That's 11 separate "whiffs." At some point, the stench will take a political toll, particularly after the email erasure.

Edit: just watched Stephanapoulos' "interview" with Schweizer. The author said there were 12.

rickyp wrote:It is pretty scary that Putin is managing to get a corner on the uranium mining business. But the US mines only provide uranium to the US. But only 20% of the need... And that's the scary part. Still the US government couldn't have stopped the sale of any assets out side of the US which wouldn't have changed the deal if Telfer has sold everything but the Wyoming mines. (Which currently are operating by the way.)

Russia has few uranium reserves, so why not help them? After all, they need some to supply Iran!

Oh, and some of the uranium HAS been exported. Per the NYT article, 25% went to Western Europe and Japan. After that, who knows?

Hmm, so maybe CGI is not such a wonderful philanthropic organization? It does not appear to be very efficient in any event.

If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

Ruh-roh.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

Is Charity Navigator part of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

Fate, thanks for the logical and rational argument with supporting evidence. On other pages this is Ricky's description about US conservatives:

You'll notice, on this board, that there are two kinds of argument. One is the advancement of an idea with supporting evidence. Logical, rationale.
The other is the advancement of an idea based upon emotional reaction.
Most people use a combination of the two, although the US conservative tend to the emotional.

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, and some of the uranium HAS been exported. Per the NYT article, 25% went to Western Europe and Japan. After that, who knows?

Into the nuclear power stations of the UK, France, Japan...?

Fate, thanks for the logical and rational argument with supporting evidence. On other pages this is Ricky's description about US conservatives:

Actually it was aimed at me. He get a little bothered when I disagree with his interpretation of the evidence he shows me. Typically, I get accused of not reading it or supporting my arguments with facts (if even the facts came from him, or what he just showed me...and even if I'm not the only one who disagrees.)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Oh, and some of the uranium HAS been exported. Per the NYT article, 25% went to Western Europe and Japan. After that, who knows?

Into the nuclear power stations of the UK, France, Japan...?

For the most part, that is likely. However, again, let's think for a moment. Russia has little/no uranium. It does supply Iran with some uranium. It swings a deal for American uranium. Does it strain credulity to think that some fraction of it might find its way to Russia or even Iran . . . or are we simply to believe that Putin is above reproach?

Again, this is no smoking gun, but it is a bit odd. Putin is unlikely to have gone to these lengths to be a supplier for Europe and Japan.

Ray Jay wrote:Fate, thanks for the logical and rational argument with supporting evidence. On other pages this is Ricky's description about US conservatives:

You'll notice, on this board, that there are two kinds of argument. One is the advancement of an idea with supporting evidence. Logical, rationale.
The other is the advancement of an idea based upon emotional reaction.
Most people use a combination of the two, although the US conservative tend to the emotional.

So far, his only "supporting evidence" has been from rabid Clinton supporters.

Ray Jay wrote:Fate, thanks for the logical and rational argument with supporting evidence.

Thank you.

I eagerly anticipate rickyp's next post in this forum.

fate

Russia has few uranium reserves, so why not help them? After all, they need some to supply Iran!

Who told you this?

Russia has substantial economic resources of uranium, with about 10% of world reasonably assured resources plus inferred resources up to US$ 130/kg – 487,000 tonnes U (2011 'Red Book'). Historic uranium exploration expenditure is reported to have been about $4 billion. The Federal Natural Resources Management Agency (Rosnedra) reported that Russian uranium reserves grew by 15% in 2009, particularly through exploration in the Urals and Kalmykia Republic, north of the Caspian Sea

.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... and_mining

Wouldn't you rather have someone selling Iran uranium for use in nuclear reactors than having Iran enrich their own?

If you read the whole report i linked, it seems likely that Russia has made a strategic move to control a major portion of the worlds supply of uranium.... They are already major energy suppliers to Europe (gas).
Now, holding mines in Australia and the US is something of a double edged sword. These are assets that can be easily controlled if sanctions are placed on Russia, for instance. Its hard to conceive of them having strategic value in a world where Russia is a full and complete partner in trade.
Where they gain by having a large market share is in ratcheting up the price.....
I think Uranium One was finding doing business in the former Soviet satellites problematic, and didn't really have a lot of options in who could purchase. The assets in the US and Australia were miinor parts of the whole package.

fate

Oh, and some of the uranium HAS been exported. Per the NYT article, 25% went to Western Europe and Japan. After that, who knows

25% of one shipment licensed for export to Canada for processing. The mine isn't currently in production.

rickyp wrote:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Russia--Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/#Uranium_resources_and_mining

Meh, I might have misunderstood it and it might have had to do with mining, where Russia is somewhat more productive than the US. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nucle ... roduction/

Wouldn't you rather have someone selling Iran uranium for use in nuclear reactors than having Iran enrich their own?

I would rather have Iran have to scrape and claw to get it, rather than be amply supplied for something they do not need.

If you read the whole report i linked, it seems likely that Russia has made a strategic move to control a major portion of the worlds supply of uranium.... They are already major energy suppliers to Europe (gas).

Perfect. So, why should the US rejoice in that? Let's put Putin in charge of the Earth's energy! What could go wrong?

Now, holding mines in Australia and the US is something of a double edged sword. These are assets that can be easily controlled if sanctions are placed on Russia, for instance. Its hard to conceive of them having strategic value in a world where Russia is a full and complete partner in trade.
Where they gain by having a large market share is in ratcheting up the price.....

To this point, it's really restraining Putin, isn't it? I mean, hey, he hasn't invaded a country this year!

But, back on point: Hillary was against the Dubai port deal when she was a Senator. That was too central to our national defense interests. But, uranium isn't?

It's funny: looking back via Google: Bill Clinton was advising Dubai on how to get the deal through the Congress and Hillary was criticizing it. So, even then, they were working the system: he was getting paid to try and overcome her resistance. Brilliant.

Examining the actual workings of the Clinton Foundation might actually have legs.
At the very least its going to force a very close look at the Foundation and how it works. Could be a double edged sword though.
And be careful about the lack of rating by Charity Navigator. Here's what they said:

Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator

The question is, what does happen to all that money? And when they say "programs" what is actually being done?
If it turns out, upon examination, that the programs are actually delivering on the ground value equal to or even in excess of other established NGOs... then there's no scandal. And in fact it will look as if the Clintons have found a better way to deliver value than through the existing systems.

Between 2009 and 2012, the The Federalist reported that the Clinton Foundation raised more than $500 million dollars according to its IRS filings. 15% of that, or $75 million, was spent on charitable activities. More than $25 million was spent on travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits.
(Note: This may not actually be as bad as it sounds; it seems that for 2014, for example, 76% of their expenditures were for programs, and their program expenses were $68 million of $85 million total expenses; their charitable work is done through those programs, not through funds given out as charity as The Federalist would have you believe. If you know more about how this works, and why the 15% figure cited shouldn't be considered correct,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/2 ... orld-Order

The Clinton Foundation has an awful lot of adherents including partners who care an awful lot about how well their money delivers... Warren Buffet, for one and the Gates.... I'm sceptical that anyone could get away with a public shell game as big as this would have to be for them only to spend 15% on actual charitable or development work. If they didn't deliver the goods they wouldn't get support.

for instance:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/press ... -women-and

http://time.com/3737672/politics-aside- ... th-a-look/

So what happens if a really close look at the Foundation does nothing more than publicize a highly effective way of delivering on its promise? This will only burnish Hillary's reputation...

Established in 2005 by President Bill Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, convenes global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world's most pressing challenges. CGI Annual Meetings have brought together 190 sitting and former heads of state, more than 20 Nobel Prize laureates, and hundreds of leading CEOs, heads of foundations and NGOs, major philanthropists, and members of the media. To date, members of the CGI community have made nearly 3,200 commitments which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.

The alternative is that the foundation is what some say, "a slush fund for the Clintons". In which case hardy journalists will demonstrate exactly what the slush is .. and donors will become irate. And Hillary might be damaged.
So far there's a lot of innuendo. And a lack of reporting transparency over what "programs" are....

fate

But, back on point: Hillary was against the Dubai port deal when she was a Senator. That was too central to our national defense interests. But, uranium isn't

If you want to make a claim that US trade policy has been detrimental to the interests of the majority of Americans..... I'll agree.Hilary is just one of hundreds of culprits in this, and none of her Republican opponents are aligned against the regulatory changes that are occurring.
Right now there's a stinky trade deal being signed with almost no public information.

Fate

Perfect. So, why should the US rejoice in that? Let's put Putin in charge of the Earth's energy! What could go wrong

?
I think its unwise as well. But the US mines are a sliver of the deal. The ones that matter are next door neighbors to Russia, and nothing the US could have done would have stopped that transfer.
The deal for them was going to happen anyway.
By approving the deal, the Wyoming mines may become operational at some point. If Uranium One sold everything but them, they might well have just shut them down.At the moment they aren't operational....meaning they probably aren't cost effective. (says so in report linked below)
Its pretty small potatoes.And the notion that the Wyoming mines a re a strategic asset is preposterous. Most of the US needs for uranium come from Saskatchewan

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... loration-/

.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... --Uranium/