As a member of MSF I find that statement very callous.
[RD] NY v. Trump Foundation
- Thread starter Zkribbler
- Start date
That's because you're thinking of "charity" as "a way to help people" rather than as "a tax incentive to be optimized".
Lexicus
Deity
This is certainly the way Trump thinks of charities! Thank you for this insight into the mind of someone "on the Right"
To interrupt, Trump is a special brand of despicable. Trump Foundation. Hiding his experimentation into Cuba using a charity. Clearly, he's acceptable to (the sum of) a certain segments of voters. But this is not how those 'on the Right' view charity. Sure, financiers will, but that's a different question of how you arrange your own money.
One bias that people have when it comes to charity is the idea that you want to give unfortunate people stuff. Homeless people should have food banks. Poor kids should have pencils for school. It's because people view these 'stuff' as essential tools in uplifting the unfortunate person. Sometimes this instinct is correct. But only at certain scales. But it's often incorrect, which is why aid programs can not help nearly as much as the dollar budgets would suggest. An impoverished person needs food, absolutely. But if this food is on the condition of 3 hours of travel to and from home, then it might be the wrong tool in the toolkit. People in a refugee camp also need food, but there is literally no amount of food you can put into a refugee camp that will allow that camp to transform into a viable economy.
Another bias people have is how 'close to home' they prefer to give to their charities. I suspect that this would be a difference between liberals and conservatives, but it will be on a spectrum. Now, obviously, people will donate to their local art gallery preferentially to one far away. But art galleries don't really have that 'helping desperate people' feel. So things like donations to the alma matter vs. helping build schools elsewhere. Donations to local Pride compared to Pride organisations elsewhere, even where it's more desperate. I know some people who're very generous with their local YMCA, but have never considered giving to MSF. And vis versa,people whose Human Rights Watch donations completely overwhelm their Food Bank donations.
One bias that people have when it comes to charity is the idea that you want to give unfortunate people stuff. Homeless people should have food banks. Poor kids should have pencils for school. It's because people view these 'stuff' as essential tools in uplifting the unfortunate person. Sometimes this instinct is correct. But only at certain scales. But it's often incorrect, which is why aid programs can not help nearly as much as the dollar budgets would suggest. An impoverished person needs food, absolutely. But if this food is on the condition of 3 hours of travel to and from home, then it might be the wrong tool in the toolkit. People in a refugee camp also need food, but there is literally no amount of food you can put into a refugee camp that will allow that camp to transform into a viable economy.
Another bias people have is how 'close to home' they prefer to give to their charities. I suspect that this would be a difference between liberals and conservatives, but it will be on a spectrum. Now, obviously, people will donate to their local art gallery preferentially to one far away. But art galleries don't really have that 'helping desperate people' feel. So things like donations to the alma matter vs. helping build schools elsewhere. Donations to local Pride compared to Pride organisations elsewhere, even where it's more desperate. I know some people who're very generous with their local YMCA, but have never considered giving to MSF. And vis versa,people whose Human Rights Watch donations completely overwhelm their Food Bank donations.
With big foundations like the Gates, you have to keep in mind the long term value of what they can do. Go back 100 or more years to the Rockefeller and Carnegie start up foundations and how they have contributed over time. Bill and Melinda drive the foundation now, but they will be dead long before the money stops working and benefiting people. Sure ego and tax benefits drive the creation process, but those are just short term issues and mostly irrelevant to benefits to come. Whatever you think of JD Rockefeller doesn't matter any more.
EDIT: As for the Trump family and their "charity": lock them up!
EDIT: As for the Trump family and their "charity": lock them up!
True, but keep the perspective in mind. Saying "they're both bad" glosses over the epic comparative corruption of the Trump Foundation. Also keep in mind that condemning the Clintons is not on the same level of importance or relevance, since they aren't currently occupying the White House.Like the *cough* *cough* Clinton Foundation.
No.
Pointing at corruption=good
Pointing at Clinton corruption in response to a discussion/thread about Trump corruption... or invoking Clinton as a defense against allegations against Trump = whataboutism
Do you see the difference?
Last edited:
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
My apparently unpopular opinion is that while the Clinton Foundation is a real charity that does good, it's impossible that it wasn't also an influence peddling racket being run by the Secretary of State.
But that doesn't mean that whatabouting the Trump Foundation with the Clinton Foundation isn't an obvious and ridiculous ploy to deflect blame from the Dear Leader.
But that doesn't mean that whatabouting the Trump Foundation with the Clinton Foundation isn't an obvious and ridiculous ploy to deflect blame from the Dear Leader.
Did you not read the post where I said I was joking.
Of course the Clinton Foundation is an "actual" charity unlike the fuhrers.
But as had been pointed out by others there was some peddling going on there.
If we're going to make fun of charities that carry the names of their benefactor then you can't leave out this one.
plarq
Crazy forever
Donating to Scientology would be a better alternative. At least you know they are scammers.
Heck if we're going to do that, please donate to the rah charities. Just let me know the amount you want to donate and I'll send you an email address for your paypal transfer.
I will promise to use all the proceeds for personal gain. How much more honest can you be.
I will promise to use all the proceeds for personal gain. How much more honest can you be.
Berzerker
Deity
Where was the Democrat's outrage when she was in office? Isn't that an emolument?
The Clinton Foundation was mentioned as an example of a charity named for a politician.
Pointing to corruption = good
Pointing at Trump's corruption = good
Ignoring Clinton's corruption = hypocrisy
Whataboutism = deflecting hypocrisy
Berzerker
Deity
I dont remember if I started one, but I do remember criticizing her so someone else might have started it. What is your point?
Lexicus
Deity
Zkribbler
Deity
Those donating to the Clinton Foundation gave their money to the Foundation which used it for charitable purposes, not to the Clintons. None of the Clintons took a salary from the Foundation. So no, no emolument.
