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 October 20 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
Consider that your own fault for never being clear throughout this entire exchange of what your point actually is. You keep saying vague things about Clinton that is never backed up so of course nobody knows what you're talking about.
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there.
On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote: I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library.
Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions.
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages?
Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum"
Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point.
Also how this went down was that you said
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it.
Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual.
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: ...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ...
Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place.
Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit?
I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse.
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Do people come to worship Bill? Does it not have books and library stuff in it?
If anything, it would be a museum.
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
Or you got caught in a claim you can’t back up with documentation and got called out for it. And now you are claiming we are gaslighting, but really you can’t back up your shit.
You notice earlier when found zero evidence of Wikileaks doctoring documents and I admitted I was wrong. You should try that. Embrace sweet release.
lol, you tried to make some asinine point about it being a library and asking if I'd been there, and Ticklish basically said "yes I've been there, it's pretty much a museum to his presidency (like they all are)" Showing that ignoring you was the appropriate course.
With less than three weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump is dipping in the polls and struggling to get out of a dismal news cycle focused on allegations of sexual assault and a damning audio recording that caught him boasting about grabbing women’s genitals.
But as New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman revealed on stage at the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit on Wednesday morning, Trump has lost one key ally: Roger Ailes. The former Fox News boss had reportedly served as an advisor to Trump throughout the campaign. He was said to have played a particularly important role as of late, helping him prepare for the presidential debates.
That's all changed now, according to Sherman and Vanity Fair contributing editor Sarah Ellison. The reason for the fallout depends on who you ask.
“Ailes’s camp said Ailes learned that Trump couldn’t focus—surprise, surprise—and that advising him was a waste of time,” Sherman said. “These debate prep sessions weren’t going anywhere.”
On the Trump side, Ellison said the story is different: “Even for the second debate, Ailes kept going off on tangents and talking about his war stories while he was supposed to be prepping Trump.”
News that Ailes was advising Trump was met with outrage over the summer, as Ailes himself was mired in his own sexual harassment scandal. He resigned in July over allegations that he harassed more than two dozen women. Ailes categorically denied the accusations, though Fox News settled with at least three of his alleged victims, including a $20 million agreement with Gretchen Carlson. The Ailes/Trump falling out comes as Trump faces allegations of his own (which the billionaire has also denied).
The drama was juicy enough to garner a T.V. deal for Sherman, who announced on stage that he will be working on a limited series based on the Ailes saga. The project, which does not yet have a title, has not cast any actors yet. But when Ellison asked Sherman who could possibly play the one-time conservative kingmaker, he had some ideas.
“Anthony Hopkins in the Hitchcock Film was a spitting image,” he said, while also floating John Goodman as a possibility.
The news came just after the two-day event, presented by Vanity Fair in association with the Aspen Institute, kicked off in San Francisco. Leaders in business, technology, media, and entertainment, will discuss finding the next billion dollar idea, how man and machine will interact, and an inside look at Amazon, Disney, and Uber from the executives who run them.
On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: ...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ...
Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place.
Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit?
I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse.
You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity.
Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself.
Not if you're not using your own money to build it.
At which point why did they put their own money in in the first place? If the basic premise here is "there are a few people with hundreds of millions of dollars and they're scamming for cheap rent" then none of this adds up. If other peoples' donations were paying for the library then why did they put their own money in in the first place? There is no "scamming for cheap rent" narrative that is internally consistent. The optimal situation for them is to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and have other people build them a library with an apartment. The next most optimal is for them to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and then just buy an apartment. The least optimal is for them to give a bunch of money to the CFF, not pay tax on that money (but also not have the money anymore) and then build a library with an apartment with it.
There's a few figures I'm missing in order to determine whether or not it's cheaper for them to do it this way.
(1) How much did they donate to the foundation? (2) How much did they save on taxes by doing so? (3) What % of the money used to build the complex is tied up in the suite?
If 1 is low enough and 3 is high enough, I can easily see it being cheaper for them this way.
No idea, but you do have to control for size and more specific location.
I believe they gave $10m to the CFF. About 30% effective tax rate I think. Highest is 39.6% so the maximum saving would have been just under $4m.
If the suite cost $8m and the library to camouflage it cost $2m then they'd get a $8m suite and a $4m tax break for just $10m so they'd come out $2m ahead. But again, this seems a little far-fetched. I mean doesn't this all sound a little silly?
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
?????
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: ...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ...
Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place.
Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit?
I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse.
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Do people come to worship Bill? Does it not have books and library stuff in it?
If anything, it would be a museum.
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
Or you got caught in a claim you can’t back up with documentation and got called out for it. And now you are claiming we are gaslighting, but really you can’t back up your shit.
You notice earlier when found zero evidence of Wikileaks doctoring documents and I admitted I was wrong. You should try that. Embrace sweet release.
lol, you tried to make some asinine point about it being a library and asking if I'd been there, and Ticklish basically said "yes I've been there, it's pretty much a museum to his presidency (like they all are)" Showing that ignoring you was the appropriate course.
Just type it out GH.
“You’re right, I can’t really find anything to prove the Clinton Library is lacking in resources a substandard library. I was wrong.”
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there.
And there you have it.
On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote: I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library.
Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions.
On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages?
Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum"
Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point.
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it.
Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual.
The important part about this is that Wolf noted that it is a pretty ridiculous process just not specific to Clinton, then Ticklish didn't just validate the point on what it was, he (and wolf) noted this is what presidential libraries are and have been.
You were too busy thinking it was an attack on Clinton/wanting to fight to realize that if you knew anything about presidential libraries, been to one, or, you know, did anything other than google it for 30 seconds seeing it's a hot topic in right wing tabloids, before responding doubting/dismissing the claim you'd realize it was a stupid angle to take in the argument.
Now the lot of you are all pissy that you guys got caught looking silly (more importantly in a discussion with me) and trying to turn it on me.
It's like getting hit in the face with the speed bag. Y'all are playing it off cool though. Proceed.
NEW YORK — A record high 60 percent of American adults support legalization of marijuana, according to a new Gallup poll released three weeks before voters in nine states decide whether to expand legal access to pot.
When Gallup first asked about this issue in 1969, 12 percent of Americans supported legalization. By 2000, support had increased to 31 percent and has continued climbing since then, reaching 58 percent last year.
Recreational use of marijuana is currently legal in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Depending on the Election Day outcome, they could be joined by Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada.
Three other states — Florida, Arkansas and North Dakota — will be deciding whether to permit marijuana for medical purposes. Montanans will vote on whether to ease restrictions on an existing medical marijuana law.
According to Gallup’s new poll, released on Wednesday, 67 percent of Democrats support legalization, compared to 42 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents. Support among adults aged 18-34 was 77 percent, compared to 45 percent among those over 55.
The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 5-9 with a random sample of 1,017 adults living in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Gallup said the margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Gallup’s findings were similar to those in a survey released Oct. 12 by the Pew Research Center. It found that 57 percent of U.S. adults supported legalization of marijuana, up from 32 percent a decade earlier.
Tom Angell, chairman of the pro-legalization group Marijuana Majority, said the two polls suggested that prospects were good for the state ballot measures.
“More politicians — presidential candidates included — would do themselves a big favor to take note of the clear trend,” he said in an email.
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there.
And there you have it.
On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote: I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library.
Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions.
On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages?
Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum"
Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point.
Also how this went down was that you said
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it.
Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual.
The important part about this is that Wolf noted that it is a pretty ridiculous process just not specific to Clinton, then Ticklish didn't just validate the point on what it was, he (and wolf) noted this is what presidential libraries are and have been.
You were too busy thinking it was an attack on Clinton/wanting to fight to realize that if you knew anything about presidential libraries, been to one, or, you know, did anything other than google it for 30 seconds seeing it's a hot topic in right wing tabloids, before responding doubting/dismissing the claim you'd realize it was a stupid angle to take in the argument.
Now the lot of you are all pissy that you guys got caught looking silly (more importantly in a discussion with me) and trying to turn it on me.
It's like getting hit in the face with the speed bag. Y'all are playing it off cool though. Proceed.
I have no idea what you're saying with this. Like, how is Clinton making a library an issue for you?
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
?????
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:44 Barrin wrote:
On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: ...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ...
Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place.
Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit?
I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse.
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Do people come to worship Bill? Does it not have books and library stuff in it?
If anything, it would be a museum.
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
Or you got caught in a claim you can’t back up with documentation and got called out for it. And now you are claiming we are gaslighting, but really you can’t back up your shit.
You notice earlier when found zero evidence of Wikileaks doctoring documents and I admitted I was wrong. You should try that. Embrace sweet release.
lol, you tried to make some asinine point about it being a library and asking if I'd been there, and Ticklish basically said "yes I've been there, it's pretty much a museum to his presidency (like they all are)" Showing that ignoring you was the appropriate course.
Just type it out GH.
“You’re right, I can’t really find anything to prove the Clinton Library is lacking in resources a substandard library. I was wrong.”
Just embrace that you can't back that up.
As an actual answer for you, the NARA has architectural and design standards, which includes document storage and handling, facilities requirements, etc.
There is likely documentation that shows what is required for a Presidential Library to qualify as a NARA approved library.
On October 20 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
This bothers me as much as it bothers you. I think you should repeat your point as often as it goes unaddressed.
His point continually changes. If you trace it from the beginning it goes
Hillary Clinton is corrupt because The Clintons gave money to the CFF because They wanted a tax break on their apartment so They built an apartment with CFF money then They built a library around the apartment to make it count as a charitable expense but It's not really a library, it's more of a shrine
At each point we've asked for sources. When he claimed Clinton was corrupt and we asked for sources he linked us to the dailywire explaining that they donated money to the CFF and got a tax deduction. When we asked for sources that showed that that was shady he alleged that there was a penthouse. When we asked for sources for the penthouse and an explanation for how it was shady he made a half dozen posts calling everyone naive, saying that of course it was shady, that Bill was using it for non charity purposes (which remained unstated) and whined about being gaslighted. Calls for evidence to prove that this penthouse existed or was being used in non charitable ways went unanswered. GH insisted he was a victim of a large conspiracy to discredit him by demanding that he tell us what the fuck he was talking about.
End day 1.
On day 2 GH insists that if there is no evidence for something then he assumes it doesn't happen. Someone points out that he didn't provide any evidence for anything on his previous claim. So he links a tabloid article explaining that Bill uses the apartment to meet up with old friends and play hearts. Therefore this was all clearly a big tax scam to enable Bill to get a deduction on his hearts apartment expenses. I point out that donating $10m to build a library in order to try and make your hearts apartment tax deductible probably doesn't actually work as a tax scam because you still come out behind due to the cost of the library. GH then claims that it's not really a library. We go around the whole damn circle of refusing to give any evidence again and here we are.
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there.
And there you have it.
On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote: I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library.
Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions.
On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:
On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote: If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents.
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time.
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you.
So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search.
I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break...
You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment.
I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages?
Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument.
Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum"
Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point.
Also how this went down was that you said
It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library.
Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it.
Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual.
The important part about this is that Wolf noted that it is a pretty ridiculous process just not specific to Clinton, then Ticklish didn't just validate the point on what it was, he (and wolf) noted this is what presidential libraries are and have been.
You were too busy thinking it was an attack on Clinton/wanting to fight to realize that if you knew anything about presidential libraries, been to one, or, you know, did anything other than google it for 30 seconds seeing it's a hot topic in right wing tabloids, before responding doubting/dismissing the claim you'd realize it was a stupid angle to take in the argument.
Now the lot of you are all pissy that you guys got caught looking silly (more importantly in a discussion with me) and trying to turn it on me.
It's like getting hit in the face with the speed bag. Y'all are playing it off cool though. Proceed.
You've gone off the deep end. Off your rocker m8.
All I've been asking for for the entire length of this is some kind of source for the bullshit you're spewing. And all I've gotten so far is the dailywire insisting that the crooked power couple are using standard tax deductions and the washington times saying that Bill is hosting games of hearts with his friends.
Guys, please. The whole discussion is really only centered around the fact, taht GH is involved. Whether he is right or wrong, whether he made outlandish claims or not, whether he attacked Clinton or whatever. The whole style of arguing and speaking personally to Gh just shows taht people are hot for proving him wrong. And taht made the last pages really a shtshow. So could we just change the topic and abstain from that useless argument?
On October 20 2016 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: ...when it's a CEO donating money to his charity, that then pays for a penthouse, ...
Yeah, that is lame. Albeit probably just good business sense according to Trump. Who [would?] kinda have a point; I'd sooner attack the system that allows it in the first place.
Maybe making charitable donations to charities that you help run should have no tax benefit?
I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse.
You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity.
Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself.
Not if you're not using your own money to build it.
At which point why did they put their own money in in the first place? If the basic premise here is "there are a few people with hundreds of millions of dollars and they're scamming for cheap rent" then none of this adds up. If other peoples' donations were paying for the library then why did they put their own money in in the first place? There is no "scamming for cheap rent" narrative that is internally consistent. The optimal situation for them is to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and have other people build them a library with an apartment. The next most optimal is for them to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and then just buy an apartment. The least optimal is for them to give a bunch of money to the CFF, not pay tax on that money (but also not have the money anymore) and then build a library with an apartment with it.
There's a few figures I'm missing in order to determine whether or not it's cheaper for them to do it this way.
(1) How much did they donate to the foundation? (2) How much did they save on taxes by doing so? (3) What % of the money used to build the complex is tied up in the suite?
If 1 is low enough and 3 is high enough, I can easily see it being cheaper for them this way.
Do apartments in Little Rock even cost $10m?
No idea, but you do have to control for size and more specific location.
I believe they gave $10m to the CFF. About 30% effective tax rate I think. Highest is 39.6% so the maximum saving would have been just under $4m.
If the suite cost $8m and the library to camouflage it cost $2m then they'd get a $8m suite and a $4m tax break for just $10m so they'd come out $2m ahead. But again, this seems a little far-fetched. I mean doesn't this all sound a little silly?
I saw the figure $135m as the value of the library (suite included) a few times in the articles shown by GH.
I can imagine the suite itself being even less than $8m, but I don't really know.
Even then, if someone else is fronting $125m for your building (including apartment) you still wouldn't come out ahead by throwing another $10m into the pot. Have them build you the building including an apartment, use the apartment, pay tax on the $10m and have $6m left over, plus an apartment. The whole "the Clinton Family built a library as a tax writeoff for their apartment" argument just doesn't make any sense.
EPT
