|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
|
On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for.
Some days I just don't know what is satire anymore. Denigrate the concerns of others. Imply they're the types that get offended when gays hold hands in public. Say they've earned their stigma and should own it. Support the movement to deny them job prospects for holding the wrong opinions because you can call that unhealthy handling of criticism ... not unhealthy persecution to the individual. Fucking toxic to the core to democratic debate. Puritanism thou hath found thy true home.
You score many bonus points for retreating to being misunderstood.
Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation.
He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here.
This question-response is about as crystal clear as any could be, and it should be cause for less aligned individuals to stop and consider. It's very easy to follow the argument to its inevitable conclusion
If you support one of the two candidates from major parties--the wrong candidate--it's perfectly fine that your job prospects are then altered. Because he's just that bad, which justifies it.
And then you wonder why people can't just get along and there's gridlock.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 08 2016 09:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. In other words, if you support the wrong candidate, find a safe space by leaving your universities, preserving them as safe spaces for progressives. Laugh out loud hilarious. "That is a liberal policy. Yes it came out, he didn't intend it to" -- Margaret Thatcher
|
On September 08 2016 09:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know  Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily. Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below. Show nested quote +
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”
“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Swing and a miss! You may actually want to take the time to understand what the big kids are talking about before you post something like this. You've completely missed the point.
EDIT: And I'm still marveling at how you missed the fact that kwizach already posted that and that I addressed it like two or three times. That should have been a really big fucking clue that you were barking up the wrong tree.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves. ? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
Good for you. How do you feel about Trump's red Starbucks cup fits and other related "how dare you bring the fact that there are non white Christian people into my life" incidents?
|
On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves. ? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal.
What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
|
Is anyone actually watching the damn NBC forum?
|
On September 08 2016 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily. Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”
“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ Swing and a miss! You may actually want to take the time to understand what the big kids are talking about before you post something like this. You've completely missed the point.
Remember the bit about "personal attacks, grandstanding and shitstirring"?
Returning to argument-based discussion:
So far as I can see, the conclusion to be drawn from the facts presented in this thread so far is "there is insufficient reason to believe that the Clinton Foundation is using their money for non-charitable purposes, and there is insufficient reason to believe they are using the money in such a way that invalidates their specific charity classification".
Do you disagree with either of those statements? If so, which, and why? If not, what are you trying to have a conversation about?
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. Some days I just don't know what is satire anymore. Denigrate the concerns of others. Imply they're the types that get offended when gays hold hands in public. Say they've earned their stigma and should own it. Support the movement to deny them job prospects for holding the wrong opinions because you can call that unhealthy handling of criticism ... not unhealthy persecution to the individual. Fucking toxic to the core to democratic debate. Puritanism thou hath found thy true home. You score many bonus points for retreating to being misunderstood. Show nested quote +Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. Show nested quote +He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. This question-response is about as crystal clear as any could be, and it should be cause for less aligned individuals to stop and consider. It's very easy to follow the argument to its inevitable conclusion If you support one of the two candidates from major parties--the wrong candidate--it's perfectly fine that your job prospects are then altered. Because he's just that bad, which justifies it. And then you wonder why people can't just get along and there's gridlock. + Show Spoiler +On September 08 2016 09:20 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. In other words, if you support the wrong candidate, find a safe space by leaving your universities, preserving them as safe spaces for progressives. Laugh out loud hilarious. "That is a liberal policy. Yes it came out, he didn't intend it to" -- Margaret Thatcher
I keep politics off of my facebook page because it's no business of anyone on there, although my facebook is also private so I'm probably fine either way. My last employer was politically about where Ann Coulter was, and he made us aware of it. I didn't see the need to bring up that I thought he was a bigot but if I had called him out I would have been in no way surprised if it impacted my employment prospects.
Half the country appears to support Trump, the Trump supporters will be fine. But if you're worried about people judging you for the shit you say then maybe just keep quiet. I ran the risk of being discriminated against for my political beliefs but I didn't demand my workplace be a safe space for me to explain to my employer why he was a fucking idiot, I just kept my mouth shut and got a new job when I got a better offer.
If someone publicly supports a candidate that a lot of people perceive to be racist (I think he is racist so put me in that group but I'll admit that's just like my opinion bro) then they do so knowing that they'll be judged by those people. Same as anything else.
|
On September 08 2016 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves. ? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal. What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games?
I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
|
On September 08 2016 09:55 oBlade wrote:
Is anyone actually watching the damn NBC forum?
I was thinking of watching it later when i got home, but all I hear are the wails of those lamenting our two choices. So perhaps I will not.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:57 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves. ? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal. What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games? I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly.
He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
|
On September 08 2016 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily. Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”
“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ Swing and a miss! You may actually want to take the time to understand what the big kids are talking about before you post something like this. You've completely missed the point.
On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument.
From your own clarification. This is what Cannons is rebuking, something you've stated twice now and continue to act bewildered about when addressed.
|
On September 08 2016 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:57 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves. ? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal. What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games? I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly. He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Yeah, basically if you do what he does, expect to get cut and never play in the nfl again.
|
On September 08 2016 09:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily. Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”
“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ Swing and a miss! You may actually want to take the time to understand what the big kids are talking about before you post something like this. You've completely missed the point. EDIT: And I'm still marveling at how you missed the fact that kwizach already posted that and that I addressed it like two or three times. That should have been a really big fucking clue that you were barking up the wrong tree.
Prove that your claim:
"And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument."
Isn't wildly contracted by the factcheck.org laying out how the CF is an "operating foundation" that does [[see below]]. You saying how great your arguments are isn't an argument. Post the argument itself.
[[see below]]
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
|
On September 08 2016 10:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:57 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:46 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves. ? I don't know about other people but I said immediately what he did was within his right and no big deal. I honestly don't understand the kaepernick thing, "oh people died for that flag respect it!", no what people died for was that people like kaepernick could sit and for it to not be a big deal. What about how it impacts his job prospects? Or how about the cops threatening not to work the games? I don't think it should impact his position, that should be determined by his performance on the field. Off the field it should be criminal or illegal behavior that cost him his job but it's too bad that it probably will. The cops threatening to not work was silly. He's a sportsman and a public figure, essentially an entertainer who creates revenue for his team by being popular. Bringing up his politics was probably a dumb move although it really depends on how many people stop supporting him vs how many start. But if he lost his job for it I wouldn't cry discrimination because his politics is not a protected class from employment discrimination.
Well he's got the top selling Jersey out of any player, so considering his miserable play (Seahawks fan), it was probably the right move. The whole being a good thing to do doesn't hurt either.
It does highlight how racist a lot of people are when they are more outraged by his protest, than the systemic violation of constitutional rights and violence he's protesting.
|
On September 08 2016 09:55 oBlade wrote:
Is anyone actually watching the damn NBC forum?
I don't see anything on NBC (you talking about the tv channel right?)
|
On September 08 2016 10:01 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily. Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses." That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”
“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ Swing and a miss! You may actually want to take the time to understand what the big kids are talking about before you post something like this. You've completely missed the point. Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument. From your own clarification. This is what Cannons is rebuking, something you've stated twice now and continue to act bewildered about when addressed.
And clearly you don't understand the issue either. Now go read this post again. It's all there. I'll even help you out by highlighting the key provisions, half of which you've already cited:
On September 08 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:I made my first post citing to the Ortel report. Kwizach then responds by correctly pointing out that direct aid numbers don't mean much if you're talking about a charity that does its charitable work through operations as opposed to simply passing out money to people, and he cited an article supporting his point. I then respond with this: Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote:
The charge in the Ortel report is that the Foundation isn't doing valid 501(c)(3) charitable work, so it isn't a valid operating charity. In other words, what I said is that kwizach's point is inapplicable in this situation because Ortel is claiming that the Clinton Foundation's operations don't qualify as operational work. What his conclusion means is that the only remaining valid charitable use of the funds that the Clinton Foundation would be direct aid -- IE distributing money for charitable causes. And the problem here is that the Clinton Foundation spends a miniscule fraction of its funds on direct aid, with the vast majority of those funds being spent on "other" things that Ortel has defined as not charitable uses. This is the essence of Ortel's argument.
|
Did anyone else notice where xDaunt completely failed to grasp that kwizach's post addressed whether CF is an "operating" charity or not?
|
On September 08 2016 10:13 Doodsmack wrote:
Did anyone else notice where xDaunt completely failed to grasp that kwizach's post addressed whether CF is an "operating" charity or not?
The point is that he tried attribute to me the position that I don't understand what an operational charity is.
|
Happy birthday, GH!
Also, didn't see this posted:
Together with his joint committees, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump raised $90 million in August, according to a CNN report.
Trump’s fundraising total represents a $10 million increase from his July total but still trailed far behind Hillary Clinton, who raise $143 million in August with the Democratic National Committee and state parties.
Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-august-fundraising-totals-227847
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
