It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump signs $110b arms deal w/ Saudis & Ivanka gets $100m donation

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The announcement was made by World Bank while Ivanka was in Saudi Arabia

Merkel and German womens' rights groups have been instrumental in following though on G20 Women's initiatives since 2015 which has gained recognition to be known by the term "W20"

Saudi is a G20 nation. The UAE is a Saudi strategic/economic partner. I see no reason they would not follow the Saudi lead.

If the Saudis and the smaller emirates wish to donate to womens' advancement...I say do it!
At least someone us trying to get them to move in the right direction.

W20

No one is handing a check to Ivanka...

mg




posted on May, 22 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear


The G20 Women's organizations are not one and same as the fund that Ivanka Trump has spearheaded, promoting and soliciting for. They are 2 different things.

No one is saying that the ideology behind the fund is "bad". We are questioning the appearance of "pay to play" AND pointing out the hypocrisy of Ivanka's fund accepting Saudi dollars when Trump called on the Clinton Foundation to return Saudi dollars because of their human right violations.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AnonyMason

So, she got a donation in her honor.

Did SHE get that money?

You know, people lose respect for all you and not just the one.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




No doubt Ivanka was giving these gentlemen marriage advice. I'm sure she wasn't soliciting donations for her fund.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The promotion of women is different than "pay to play money".

The Clinton Foundation was by no means the World Bank.

The W20 is very much behind pushing G20 nations to recognize the need for womens' advancement AND is on the Advisory Council of the World Bank, Gender and Development.

Ivanka spoke on April 2017 at the W20 concerning such matters and worked with J.Y. Kim to progress in such an endeavor and of course Merkel, President of the G20 (who was also thanked).


... World Bank President Jim Yong Kim announced that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pledged a combined $100 million towards a proposed $1 billion global women's entrepreneurship fund — an initiative pushed by Ivanka Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel

LINK


Kim, the World Bank president, released a statement Wednesday saying the organization is working on the initiative, and he thanked Ivanka Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel for their leadership on the issues....
[/url]
Bloomberg

'Advocating' and 'Soliciting' very different.

Not to mentions the layers upon layers.

mg






edit on 22-5-2017 by missed_gear because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

She was commenting on the effective use of Table cloths as garments, along with trading some recipes for cooking Pork on an open spit.

Why would you make stupid claims when you have no more clue what was being said than anyone else who wasn't there?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear


You're so naive!

This "fund", birthed by Ivanka, is just another shell corporation to benefit those who play the game.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I think, if she wasn't soliciting money for her fund, that she was offering marriage advice to the King. That look on her face is her reaction to finding out, through his translator, that none of his wives have that female part any more.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: windword

The promotion of women is different than "pay to play money".

The Clinton Foundation was by no means the World Bank.

The W20 is very much behind pushing G20 nations to recognize the need for womens' advancement AND is on the Advisory Council of the World Bank, Gender and Development.

Ivanka spoke on April 2017 at the W20 concerning such matters and worked with J.Y. Kim to progress in such an endeavor and of course Merkel, President of the G20 (who was also thanked).


... World Bank President Jim Yong Kim announced that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pledged a combined $100 million towards a proposed $1 billion global women's entrepreneurship fund — an initiative pushed by Ivanka Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel

LINK


Kim, the World Bank president, released a statement Wednesday saying the organization is working on the initiative, and he thanked Ivanka Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel for their leadership on the issues....
[/url]
Bloomberg

'Advocating' and 'Soliciting' very different.

Not to mentions the layers upon layers.

mg







I pointed thus out earlier as well. People want to lie in an effort to diminish what Trump accomplished. People are still butt hurt over losing through election and Trump could bring world peace and people would complain. Credibility of many here is non existant. I'm not even a trump fan think he's an arrogant a hole. However when he does something right I will applaud him. Take away his Twitter account and he may become a president.

The middle east and Israel was ignored by three Obama administration. And I think this caused huge problems that needs to be fixed. Look the king went out on a hot runway to meet Trump. He didn't even bother when Obama went there he sent a car to retrieve him.
edit on 5/22/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: JinMI

Saying she won't be involved in soliciting funds, and then her being present in the country that just donated 100 million dollars to the fund disproves that statement.



So she is not allowed to be in a country that donates to the fund?
This is not her fund, so how did she get $100m???

You are right about hypocrisy though - I can't remember you posting your angst at the Clinton's getting donations to their own foundation. Post the thread if I missed it somehow - given your concern for these things, i am sure you must have been all over it.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: missed_gear


You're so naive!

This "fund", birthed by Ivanka, is just another shell corporation to benefit those who play the game.



I see.

And you know this the same way you can read lips from a still photograph.

Enough said.

mg



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



So she is not allowed to be in a country that donates to the fund?


So, she's not allowed an private audience with King, who subsequently donated $100 million dollars to the fund she birthed, spearheaded and negotiated?

So, She's not allowed to have dinner with President of the country that owns World Bank and that just gave her all kinds of trademark licenses?

Outrageous!




posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: missed_gear


You're so naive!

This "fund", birthed by Ivanka, is just another shell corporation to benefit those who play the game.



I see.

And you know this the same way you can read lips from a still photograph.

Enough said.

mg


Of course they know all. My view point is simple if she was able to talk a bunch of masonginists like the Saudi govt to donate to women we need to run her as president. People want to blow this off but getting Saudi to donate to women are a major deal.
edit on 5/22/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Hillary Clinton was able to get $25 million to help gays with AIDS in Africa, from the Saudi. Where's the respect?

It's the same ole pay to play game. Difference faces, same rules.



edit on 22-5-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr


Hillary Clinton was able to get $25 million to help gays with AIDS in Africa, from the Saudi. Where's the respect?

It's the same ole pay to play game. Difference faces, same rules.




Different faces, different circumstances... unless the money is being funnelled through Ivanks'a charity.. is it?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Is it a charity?


“It’s incredibly non-transparent. We don’t know if there has been any filing. We don’t know how it’s structured — is it a 501(c)3, an LLC, what is it?” Watson told ThinkProgress over the phone. Per the World Bank’s account, that is still up in the air — which means they could not possibly have filed the necessary documents to begin fundraising.
thinkprogress.org...



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


Is it a charity?


“It’s incredibly non-transparent. We don’t know if there has been any filing. We don’t know how it’s structured — is it a 501(c)3, an LLC, what is it?” Watson told ThinkProgress over the phone. Per the World Bank’s account, that is still up in the air — which means they could not possibly have filed the necessary documents to begin fundraising.
thinkprogress.org...


So is it Ivanka's foundation that she is in charge of in terms of compensation for employees and who the money goes to? For your comparison to hold up it has to be...
From what i see there is zero comparison, but you may have more you want to share...
edit on 22/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



For your comparison to hold up it has to be...


What comparison? Between the Clinton Foundation and Ivanka's women's fund? No it doesn't. Pay to play is pay to play, whether it's payments to a charity or payments that are not a charity.

The fact that its "dirty" Saudi money we're talking about, money that Trump thought was too dirty for Hillary but okay for Ivanka's fund, is blatant hypocrisy.




edit on 22-5-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



For your comparison to hold up it has to be...


What comparison? Between the Clinton Foundation and Ivanka's women's fund? No it doesn't. Pay to play is pay to play, whether it's payments to a charity or payments that are not a charity.

The fact that its "dirty" Saudi money we're talking about, money that Trump thought was too dirty for Hillary but okay for Ivanka's fund, is blatant hypocrisy.





Except it is not Ivanka's fund. Big difference. What pay is Ivanka receiving?

You realise that those who were so eager to dismiss Clinton's direct fundraising and soliciting of funds whilst SOS, have zero credibility when trying to make false comparisons to a fund Ivanka does not even own and has no control over, right?

Do you really expect anyone other than frothing at the mouth anti-Trumpers to take you seriously?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



What pay is Ivanka receiving?


Nobody knows yet, because the "fund" hasn't been registered. According to the link I previously posted. Is it a charity, or not?

It's isn't out of the realm of possibilities that its set up so that Ivanka receives a finder's fee for donations that she has solicited.

ETA: The Clintons didn't own the Clinton Foundation. It was a 5013c charity.


edit on 22-5-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join