[RD] NY v. Trump Foundation

[Lexicus]

Or are you one, based on all the stories that have come out, still skeptical.

I have had concerns about the Clinton Foundation since the left began leveling accusations about its spending in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. I have been broadly skeptical of the whole enterprise of charitable NGOs controlled by rich Westerners for many years.

 

[rah]

While I don't disagree it still begs the question. When the right makes accusations, it's a conspiracy theory, but when the left does, it's time to take it seriously? It does seem a tad partisan. (i'll admit I didn't take the original ranting seriously) but as it came under increased scrutiny I started to take it seriously. However, it has actually done some good, so I'm not willing to outright discount it like the Fuhrer's version.

 

[Lexicus]

When the right makes accusations, it's a conspiracy theory, but when the left does, it's time to take it seriously? It does seem a tad partisan.

Dude, have you met me? I absolutely hate the right, it's kind of my gimmick. I've never pretended that I'm not partisan.

More seriously though, it wasn't because the left was making the accusations that I took them seriously, it was because the accusations themselves were just more credible and they were substantiated by real reporting. IIRC it had to do with the amount of money actually going into helping people in Haiti. "Charity spending suspicious amounts on administrative costs and other expenses not directly related to its mission" is a lot more credible than the kind of accusations you could see from the right, which were mostly at Pizzagate levels of seriousness.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I'm not so convinced

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/

“Independent of our fundraising and decision-making activities on behalf of the Foundation, we have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities — including speeches, books, and advisory service engagements," Band wrote. "In that context, we have in effect served as agents, lawyers, managers and implementers to secure speaking, business and advisory service deals. In support of the President’s for-profit activity, we also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”

At one point, Band even referred to the former president’s money-making enterprises as “Bill Clinton, Inc.”

Another Teneo client, GEMS education, had donated approximately $780,000 by the time the memo was written in 2011.

“Gems approached President Clinton in 2009 to seek his personal services as an advisor to the company,” Band wrote. “Justin and I convinced them to initiate a relationship to the Foundation, which they did; that relationship has grown into a business relationship for President Clinton and a donor relationship for CGI.”

Is it just a coincidence 2009 was the year Obama and Hillary took office? Well, let us return to Trump's corruption lest I be accused of whataboutism by Clinton supporters.

 

[rah]

it was because the accusations themselves were just more credible and they were substantiated by real reporting.

I guess that's my point. I seem to keep a more open mind when discussing things without the partisan labels. When they're used I get the feeling people are telling me how I should be thinking because if I don't agree than I'm the enemy. It doesn't make me the enemy, it just makes me someone that doesn't agree on that one issue.
The way you stated it this time was much more persuasive. And since, I assume, that is your point in posting here, I was just offering my observation.
I agree with many things that you post but sometimes feel like you consider me on 'the other side' when i disagree with you on a single issue. This is the biggest problem with a polarized partisan society. I see the county getting worse in this regard.

But yeah, I'm well aware it's your shtick. It is kind of hard to miss

Just my opinion, and my signature always applies.

 

[Berzerker]

I'd say the GOP elected the Manchurian Candidate if he wasn't so corrupt

 

[Sommerswerd]

Where was the Democrat's outrage when she was in office?

You mean back in 2012? I dunno man, start a thread entitled "Where was the Democrat's outrage when Hillary was in office?" This thread is titled "NY v. Trump Foundation". I know you reeeally want to talk about the Clintons, (like conservatives/ "libertarians"/ Republican-voters always do) but that's not the thread topic.

The Clinton Foundation was mentioned as an The example of a charity named for a politician.

Yes, yes, and the dude who mentioned it has said repeatedly that he was joking when he brought them up... so that flimsy fig-leaf of an excuse for you to rail on about the Clintons has blown away hours and hours ago. You're not ranting about the Clintons in response to @rah ...so just stop it with the blame-shifting. You're ranting about the Clintons because that's what you always want to do, again, just like conservatives/ "libertarians"/ Republican-voters always do... not claiming you are any of these, just noting the correlation.

 

[metalhead]

I dont remember if I started one, but I do remember criticizing her so someone else might have started it. What is your point?

You shouldn't criticize people for selective outrage that you, yourself, also engage in. If you didn't call it out at the time, don't then chide other people for not calling it out.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have had concerns about the Clinton Foundation since the left began leveling accusations about its spending in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. I have been broadly skeptical of the whole enterprise of charitable NGOs controlled by rich Westerners for many years.

I share your concerns about NGOs... sometimes I feel like they (inadvertently for the most part) keep economically struggling countries on the mat and dysfunctional as much as they help with their "aid" programs.

 

[rah]

not claiming you are any of these

But he is a conservative/libertarian. Not sure of the Republican accusation since Trump took over, a lot of republicans (like myself) are a little unsure what we are since we certainly not what Trump is. I truly believe he hates both parties.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You shouldn't criticize people for selective outrage that you, yourself, also engage in. If you didn't call it out at the time, don't then chide other people for not calling it out.

*gasp* I see you noticed the blatant hypocrisy from the resident "hypocrisy" cop, who never leaves "hypocrisy" un-alleged color me shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya!

But he is a conservative

Well again im NOT accusing... but FTR, he's actually denied being a conservative and repeatedly claimed to be a liberal, IIRC.

 

[Lexicus]

I share your concerns about NGOs... sometimes I feel like they (inadvertently for the most part) keep economically struggling countries on the mat and dysfunctional as much as they help with their "aid" programs.

The political economy of these organizations is patronage - it's vastly wealthy elites who fund and control them. That makes them irredeemably a part of the system that creates the conditions they supposedly exist to "solve."

 

[Berzerker]

You mean back in 2012? I dunno man, start a thread entitled "Where was the Democrat's outrage when Hillary was in office?" This thread is titled "NY v. Trump Foundation". I know you reeeally want to talk about the Clintons, (like conservatives/ "libertarians"/ Republican-voters always do) but that's not the thread topic.

I'm talking about the Democrat's hypocrisy... If you dont want to address that, fine by me.

Clintons is not on the same level of importance or relevance, since they aren't currently occupying the White House.

I responded to that argument... Where was the Democrat's outrage back then? That is the reason why Democrats get accused of hypocrisy, you know.

Yes, yes, and the dude who mentioned it has said repeatedly that he was joking when he brought them up... so that flimsy fig-leaf of an excuse for you to rail on about the Clintons has blown away hours and hours ago. You're not ranting about the Clintons in response to @rah ...so just stop it with the blame-shifting. You're ranting about the Clintons because that's what you always want to do, again, just like conservatives/ "libertarians"/ Republican-voters always do... not claiming you are any of these, just noting the correlation.

I didn't bring the Clinton's up, but how does that shift the blame? Aren't both corrupt?

*gasp* I see you noticed the blatant hypocrisy from the resident "hypocrisy" cop, who never leaves "hypocrisy" un-alleged color me shocked, SHOCKED I tells ya!

So now you're accusing me of ignoring Hillary?

You shouldn't criticize people for selective outrage that you, yourself, also engage in. If you didn't call it out at the time, don't then chide other people for not calling it out.

I did call it out at the time

I dont remember if I started one, but I do remember criticizing her so someone else might have started it.

You guys cant have it both ways, you cant accuse me of obsessively criticizing Hillary and accuse me of ignoring her too.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm talking about the Democrat's hypocrisy... If you dont want to address that, fine by me.

Yeah, and now we're talking about your hypocrisy... If you don't want to address that, fine by me.

I didn't bring the Clinton's up, but how does that shift the blame?

Simple. It shifts the blame because you are trying to blame @rah for your derailing the thread into yet another rehash of your gripes with Clinton... when its plain as day to everyone that it has nothing to do with rah, because you derail every thread into your gripes with Clinton. So you're shifting blame from where it belongs... ie you, onto rah. Get it?

I did call it out at the time

You guys cant have it both ways, you cant accuse me of obsessively criticizing Hillary and accuse me of ignoring her too

For my response to this... I refer you to @metalhead who's very apropos response you conveniently sidestepped:

Link?

 

[FriendlyFire]

I have had concerns about the Clinton Foundation since the left began leveling accusations about its spending in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. I have been broadly skeptical of the whole enterprise of charitable NGOs controlled by rich Westerners for many years.

I suspect there must be some wastage and corruption given how much money the Clinton Foundation receives and large number of projects
Republicans already supeoned emails and opened up congressional investigation finding nothing criminal.

Hell we have had Republicans award PR electrical reconstruction to a 2 man shell company of friends of Trumps, 16 Mil of Trump inauguration fund was given to a friend of Melania, You have the head of Trumps EPA under 12 separate investigations.
We have Republicans celebrating Trump draining of the Swamp

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, and now we're talking about your hypocrisy... If you don't want to address that, fine by me.Simple.

I did address your accusation, I criticized the Clinton's for their foundation. I said so twice and you and mh ignored me to repeat the accusation.

It shifts the blame because you are trying to blame @rah for your derailing the thread into yet another rehash of your gripes with Clinton...

when its plain as day to everyone that it has nothing to do with rah, because you derail every thread into your gripes with Clinton.

Several people mentioned the Clintons before I did, including you. And I didn't gripe about the Clintons, I griped about the hypocrisy of Democrats who kept quiet about them. Isn't that why you got mad?

So you're shifting blame from where it belongs... ie you, onto rah. Get it?For my response to this... I refer you to @metalhead who's very apropos response you conveniently sidestepped:

Why was his response apropos? It was a straw man - I never mentioned anything about starting threads - and I did answer him. I said I dont remember if I ever started a thread about the Clinton Foundation but I did remember criticizing them over it, therefore I wasn't silent. Look at all the other people in this thread talking about the Clintons. But the moment I mention them, you hypocritically accuse me of derailing the thread.

well well

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...sians-two-peas-in-a-pod.628256/#post-15031551

I did start a thread criticizing the Clinton Foundation...

 

[FriendlyFire]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...sians-two-peas-in-a-pod.628256/#post-15031551
I did start a thread criticizing the Clinton Foundation...

You did read your own article right ?
The FBI conducted an investigation and the DOJ brought charges of Bribery, kickback and racketeering charges against Apco the Russian compromised US trucking firm

 

[Berzerker]

If you want to argue about that thread, do it in that thread or Sommers will accuse you of derailing this thread.

 

[Kyriakos]

I like the memes with Patterson and He-Clinton interviews about the latter's book

Can't find the Trevor Noah video atm :/

 

[Sommerswerd]

well well
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...sians-two-peas-in-a-pod.628256/#post-15031551
I did start a thread criticizing the Clinton Foundation...

yeah in 2018 ... So @metalhead asks you

Where was your thread decrying the Clinton Foundation in 2011? Link?

and you respond by linking a thread that you started a few months ago?, and try to pass that off as a response. this is so dishonest I don't know whether to laugh or cry

Several people mentioned the Clintons before I did, including you.

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.