[RD] NY v. Trump Foundation

yeah in 2018 :lol:... So @metalhead asks you and you respond by linking a thread that you started a few months ago?:dubious:, and try to pass that off as a response.:shake: this is so dishonest I don't know whether to laugh or cry:lol:
This statement is pretty misleading. First... your first post in this thread, which was 13 posts before mine... is clearly about the Clintons, despite you not using the actual word "Clinton". You first argue that rah's reference to the Clinton Foundation wasn't whataboutism, but instead simply a reference to another rich-person-named-Foundation besides the Trump Foundation. Then you complain that the GOP, and by implication/context Trump, is laboring under a double standard vis-a-vis the Democrats, by implication/context Clinton... which you refer to as "hypocrisy". As an aside you're mis-using/mis-applying the word "hypocrisy" and you do this a-lot.

Second, what you refer to as "several people mentioning the Clintons" is also misleading. In Post #5 @metalhead condemns charities named after rich people, which @rah responds to by invoking the Clintons, (which he later says was a joke), mh confirms that he includes Clinton in his rebuke and adds Gates, @Lexicus seconds that sentiment but adds that Trump is worse, which @Broken_Erika co-signs, then mh co-signs. Then @El_Machinae calls the mention of Clinton whataboutism and rah responds that he was joking in mentioning them. That's when you jumped in. So at the point where you entered in to condemn the supposed "hypocrisy" of people supposedly condemning Trump but not Clinton, mh, Lex, and Broken Erica had all already condemned Clinton, and rah had already said that his mention of Clinton was a joke in the first place. So there was no hypocrisy. Everyone has already acknowledged the Clinton corruption and concluded that Trump is worse, which brought us back to the topic of the thread. You can't blame your crusade to derail another thread into Clinton/Democrat whataboutism on "several people mentioning the Clintons before you did". The topic of the thread is Trump being charged for his corrupt/illegal activities.

In what way is "but Trump is worse" not whataboutism, then? :jesus:
More than one person can be bad, mmmkay?
 
In what way is "but Trump is worse" not whataboutism, then? :jesus:

Because this thread is called NY vs the Trump Foundation

If you want to start a thread about Clinton so you can call people who post "what about Trump?" in it whataboutists, go right ahead
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In what way is "but Trump is worse" not whataboutism, then? :jesus:
More than one person can be bad, mmmkay?

It's fine to compare the two and decide that one is worse. I'm open to the idea that the scale of the Clinton Foundation makes it "worse," so it's not a clear-cut thing that one is objectively worse than the other. To me, that depends on whether Trump was soliciting donations for charity, when the money was actually to be used as his own tax-free slush fund full of other people's money. That seems pretty self-evident, so there you have it.

"Whataboutism" is an attempt to deflect or derail a conversation, by bringing up a related topic and insinuating that the people criticizing one thing are hypocrites for not criticizing another thing that seems on its face to be similar.

The act of comparing one thing to another itself isn't a problem. If Berz had simply said, "Hey you guys brought up Clinton, I think that is worse and here is why:" that's a fine point that we could discuss. But instead he barged in wondering why we're all criticizing Trump but not Clinton, despite the fact that we've all criticized Clinton, many of us in this very thread. It derails the conversation into a back and forth about the Clintons, for the millionth time, forbearing the criticism of Trump. Thus, Berz's goal of disrupting a thread critical of Trump is accomplished.
 
Either report or ignore. We don't really need more discussion on how @Berzerker derails every thread he's in to be about Clinton. We all know this already, it's basically a CFC meme at this point.
 
So I talked to the guy in my office the other day about the case against the Trump Foundation. He actually has some expertise as his job at our office is a highly specialized one that involved combing the finances of nonprofits (contractors' benefit groups, which are basically trusts that manage the money used to pay benefits for prevailing-wage construction projects).

Anyway, he basically said that not too much will come of this lawsuit, that these kinds of cases frequently are drawn out so Trump may well die before it's resolved, and his children will likely have to sign some consent decree saying they can't be on the board of a nonprofit for some length of time, and they'll have to pay back whatever money the court decides was improperly collected.

I asked how screwed Trump was on a scale of 1 to 10 from this (10 being most screwed) and he said 2 or 3.
 
Even in cases where there is clear tax fraud? Does the IRS just let them slide? Because that is where the actual danger lies. None of the Trumps are going to lose sleep over their charities being revoked, that's for sure.
 
Even in cases where there is clear tax fraud? Does the IRS just let them slide? Because that is where the actual danger lies. None of the Trumps are going to lose sleep over their charities being revoked, that's for sure.
At the rate they are defunding and actively trying to destroy the IRS, I would not be surprised if in fact these types of things do slide.
 
Top Bottom