Stratman911 wrote, "...I'm not in favor of free loaders...".
Hey, what do you have against people who live off dividends, interest, and rents?

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_States
Wherein:
A report in The Washington Post, published on November 25, 2018, showed violent right-wing-related incidents up, and left-wing-related incidents down. Total domestic terrorism incidents was down to 41 in 2001, from a high of 468 in 1970, but then went up to 65 in 2017. Of those 65 events in 2017, 36 were right-wing-related (with 11 fatalities), 10 were left-wing-related (with 6 fatalities), 7 were related to Islamist extremism (with 16 fatalities), and 12, including the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, were categorized as "Other/Unknown" (with 62 fatalities, including 58 from the Las Vegas incident). The report found that 2018 was a particularly deadly year, with 11 people dying in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, 2 others in an incident in Kentucky, and two more in a shooting in Tallasshee. All three incidents were right-wing related.[88]

The Post reported that the upsurge in right-wing violence began during the Barack Obama administration and picked up steam under the presidency of Donald Trump, whose remarks after the Unite the Right rally in Charlotteville, Virginia in 2017 that there were "some very fine people on both sides" is widely seen as giving confidence to the right that the administration looked favorably on their goals, providing them with "tacit support". A former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, is quoted as saying that "[political leaders] from the White House down, used to serve as a check on conduct and speech that was abhorrent to most people. I see that eroding. ... The current political rhetoric is at least enabling, and certainly not discouraging, violence."[88]

According to analysis by the newspaper of data from the Global Terrorism Database, 92 of 263 domestic terrorism events – 35% – that occurred from 2010 to 2017 were right-wing related, while 38 (14%) were Islamist extremist-related, and 34 (13%) were left-wing related. Not only that, but a criminologist from John Jay College stated that right-wing attacks were statistically more likely to result in fatalities.[88]

Mikeyavelli remember Poe's Law. You should always give Irony Alerts, otherwise some ridiculous statement ironically made makes you ridiculous.

How would you define w***e s*******y? And what would you call a w***e s*********t's fellow traveler? What would you call one who uses w***e s*********ts to gain and hold power?

Did you even read these links?
From:
https://psmag.com/news/whats-going-on-with-the-clinton-foundation

"While it is highly inappropriate for a sitting president to call on his own Department of Justice to investigate his political opponents, Trump has nevertheless openly pushed for investigations of the Clintons while in office."

"The charges against the foundation have ranged from ridiculous to serious. Two days after the initial reports of the Trump administration's new probe, multiple conservative websites falsely claimed that 22 of the foundation's employees had been arrested. There were no arrests.

Many charges are trivial. Fox News reported that a donor to the foundation, Terrence Duffy, asked then-Secretary Clinton for help in setting up business meetings in Singapore and Hong Kong. Yet United States embassies do this routinely.

Other accusations are far more troubling. Human rights-abusing governments, including Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, have donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Saudi Arabia alone has contributed $10 million to $25 million.

Ukrainian steel magnate Victor Pinchuk also gave the foundation $10 to $25 million. And he was by many accounts not shy about asking for help from Hillary Clinton when she served as secretary of state. While there's been no indication of what the new FBI investigation is looking into, over the years these probes have usually focused on influence peddling allegedly enabled by the Clinton Foundation's fundraising."

"The foundation has made notable contributions in global health, HIV/AIDS, and women's empowerment. Perhaps its most notable success was in negotiating a significant drop in the price of drugs used to fight AIDS and then bringing those drugs to Africa, where an epidemic was ravaging the continent.

Despite the suspicions conservatives have long raised about the Clinton Foundation, Charity Navigator, a group that rates the fundraising and spending practices of non-profits, gives it high marks. The foundation spends 87 percent of what it raises on the programs it supports, a higher share than most of its peers."

Oh here's something "bad":
"I believe that the foundation's high ambitions and thirst for funds make it too open to unsavory gifts that, in turn, damage its reputation.

Foreign governments find the foundation attractive because they are limited in what they can otherwise do to improve their access and influence with American policymakers. The law prohibits their donations to American political candidates, although they may hire lobbyists.

With or without an indictment, fines, or other punishment, the Clinton Foundation's outlook will remain murky as long as its endowment remains small. Should the Clinton Foundation ultimately fold, its legacy is likely to be its fundraising practices, not its good works."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
https://www.bbc.com/news/e******n-us-2016-37826098

"Jake Johnston, an analyst with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonpartisan group that has studied the quake reconstruction, told the BBC "it's hard to say it's been anything other than a failure".

But he believes the State Department and IHRC simply replicated the mistakes of the whole foreign aid industry by chasing short-term gains instead of building longer-term capacity on the ground.

"They relied too much on outside actors," Mr Johnston says, "and supplanted the role of the Haitian government and domestic producers."

While the Clintons in their respective roles clearly had a say over where some of the quake relief cash flowed, their political enemies have wrongly claimed the family foundation directly controlled all the billions in funds.

The foundation itself raised a relatively modest $30m for aid projects in Haiti.

A spokeswoman for the charity told the BBC: "Every penny of the more than $30m raised was deployed on the ground, with no overhead taken by the Clinton Foundation."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-donations/
"
Throughout all this, the Clinton's and their defenders insisted that foundation was doing great work for mankind. It was helping the poor and sick around the world. It got top ratings from charity rating agencies. They said there wasn't any hard evidence of wrongdoing."

Now here's a big shocker:
"If the Clinton Foundation was as good as defenders claimed, why did all its big-time donors suddenly lose interest? The only reasonable explanation is that donors weren't interested in what the foundation supposedly did for humanity. They were interested in the political favors they knew [sic] their money would buy."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This sounds more like an indictment of the donors than the Clintons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though it might seem to be a bit of "what-about-ism", compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation

[Sarcasm Alert] "N**i emulators"... were those "the very fine people" shouting "Jews will not replace us!" in Charlottesville?

guild: a medieval association of craftsmen or merchants, often having considerable power

The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Most of its funds go to direct programs. The 5% are grants to other charities. It's not nice for you to deceive in such a way.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

My butt's only chafed by sitting at my computer wasting my time on OPP.

I think the e******n of Hilary Clinton would have been a disaster for the "Democrat [sic] Party". It would've been just a continuation of the neoliberalism that has held sway over the Democratic Party since Carter. She would have been blocked by Republicans more than Obama ever was (overt sexism being more acceptable than covert r****m). And the Democrats would not have gained a majority in the House.

Fit2BTied asked, "how is [Trump] a loser?" I'm not so much worried about whether he is a loser, but whether the rest of us might be [excepting the 1%, they usually come out ahead].

I don't h**e Donald Trump. (Who can h**e a six year old boy?)
https://theweek.com/speedreads/575962/donald-trump-tells-biographer-hes-same-now-first-grade

More's the pity.

I would say the AMA and Bar Assn are more like guilds.

"[My] narrative" is just following the logic of "...government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." Capitalism good; socialism bad.

And what is a corporation if not top down? Just as there are many different kinds of capitalism, there are many different kinds of socialism.

Fit2BTied asked, 'How is one supposed to respond to President Trump is "the world's worst businessman?"'

I would respond, "Until we see his tax returns, we really don't know...but the bankruptcies make one wonder."