|
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. |
United States43960 Posts
On May 27 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 07:53 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
Giving the Trump Foundation money is literally giving Trump money because Trump has repeatedly been caught double dealing and fined by the IRS for doing so. Making a donation to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Fund is not giving Hillary money. The World Bank donation is comparable to the Presidential Library donation. Donating to a Clinton Foundation is not comparable to donating to the Trump Foundation because only one of them has been found to be used as a slush fund to help the founder.
I'm disappointed in you Danglars. Not surprised, but still disappointed. I again find reason to question your judgement. Tarring the world bank, or asking the reader to consider it another kind of presidential library, is absolutely born from this elections hysteria. If you consider two dissimilar things similar in your mind, we will forever not come to terms on it, not even on the grounds of argument. I'm truly saddened that your politics has gotten in the way of your critiques of charity, but hopefully some years will soften your views. I have nothing against the World Bank, nor against the donation. I am simply drawing attention to Trump's hypocrisy. He's the one who believes that a charitable donation must be judged only by the source, regardless of how the money is spent. I do not. Cease your straw men. Straw men? I called reporter's characterizations of this fund as "Ivanka's fund" fake news (it is) and in response I got only movement of goalposts to broad corruption. The world bank announced a fund created to help women entrepreneurs at an Ivanka event and Saudi Arabia/UAE sign on. But left-wing politics is a hostile mistress, so immediately this is the Ivanka Fund. It's immediately hypocrisy to criticize Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (hmm I wonder who chooses the leadership of that one). But, you know, Trump's bad and a hypocrite so we can shape the story as we wish without regard for truth content. He should be grinning from ear to ear to know all his faults get filtered through three false stories for every one true, so he's able to claim all of it is bogus and maybe a third of America will believe it. You're doing a great job helping him out on this.
The story is Trump's hypocrisy. How are you not getting this? Come on. It's not hard. Trump said that donations from Saudi Arabia should be refused and then presented this donation as a success. That's hypocrisy. You can surely see why that's hypocrisy. That's what their point is. That's the story. The story is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy I just explained. It's not fake news. Trump really said that Saudi Arabian donations should be refused and returned.
|
On May 27 2017 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking, updated:
Seriously, what the fuck.
I assume these interceptions of Russian comunication were already common knowledge, otherwise this piece of news lets the cat out of the bag.
|
The better end of that story is that Kushner omitted this on all of his clearance forms. Nobody goes down for the substance in politics, since political power allows all kinds of action. But lying on a form? That is process. People go down for that.
|
On May 27 2017 08:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I'm more amused by her reaction to the hiring of anyone right of center. "Why?" LOL.
But don't worry-- there's no echo chamber, and she's really not that left-wing.
|
Canada13407 Posts
On May 27 2017 08:33 Sbrubbles wrote:I assume these interceptions of Russian comunication were already common knowledge, otherwise this piece of news lets the cat out of the bag.
The fact that the US monitors Russian diplomats in the US is not and has not been a secret for a long while. Its precisely why - as the article notes - Russia has communications networks which allow secret comms between diplomats and the kremlin.
I would be surprised if most large countries or technically sophisticated ones didn't have some sort of way to communicate securely between embassies and their countries. It simply makes sense. Now the level of sophistication and how those things are set up thats the real secret.
|
United States43960 Posts
On May 27 2017 08:34 Introvert wrote:I'm more amused by her reaction to the hiring of anyone right of center. "Why?" LOL. But don't worry-- there's no echo chamber, and she's really not that left-wing.
Is it bad that there's an echo chamber on scientifically resolved subjects such as whether climate change is happening? Should there not be an echo chamber?
|
On May 27 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 08:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 07:53 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
Giving the Trump Foundation money is literally giving Trump money because Trump has repeatedly been caught double dealing and fined by the IRS for doing so. Making a donation to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Fund is not giving Hillary money. The World Bank donation is comparable to the Presidential Library donation. Donating to a Clinton Foundation is not comparable to donating to the Trump Foundation because only one of them has been found to be used as a slush fund to help the founder.
I'm disappointed in you Danglars. Not surprised, but still disappointed. I again find reason to question your judgement. Tarring the world bank, or asking the reader to consider it another kind of presidential library, is absolutely born from this elections hysteria. If you consider two dissimilar things similar in your mind, we will forever not come to terms on it, not even on the grounds of argument. I'm truly saddened that your politics has gotten in the way of your critiques of charity, but hopefully some years will soften your views. I have nothing against the World Bank, nor against the donation. I am simply drawing attention to Trump's hypocrisy. He's the one who believes that a charitable donation must be judged only by the source, regardless of how the money is spent. I do not. Cease your straw men. Straw men? I called reporter's characterizations of this fund as "Ivanka's fund" fake news (it is) and in response I got only movement of goalposts to broad corruption. The world bank announced a fund created to help women entrepreneurs at an Ivanka event and Saudi Arabia/UAE sign on. But left-wing politics is a hostile mistress, so immediately this is the Ivanka Fund. It's immediately hypocrisy to criticize Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (hmm I wonder who chooses the leadership of that one). But, you know, Trump's bad and a hypocrite so we can shape the story as we wish without regard for truth content. He should be grinning from ear to ear to know all his faults get filtered through three false stories for every one true, so he's able to claim all of it is bogus and maybe a third of America will believe it. You're doing a great job helping him out on this. The story is Trump's hypocrisy. How are you not getting this? Come on. It's not hard. Trump said that donations from Saudi Arabia should be refused and then presented this donation as a success. That's hypocrisy. You can surely see why that's hypocrisy. That's what their point is. That's the story. The story is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy I just explained. It's not fake news. Trump really said that Saudi Arabian donations should be refused and returned.
I'm calling attention to the false characterization with clear intent to a different kind of hypocrisy. Ivanka Fund and Clinton Foundation because reporters remembered how effective that line of attack was during the campaign. It's not hard but you can't see it. The media published fake news through twitter intending to mislead on where the money went, and Trump tweeted about SA & the Clinton Foundation in the past--both true. If the Ivanka Fund was Trump Foundation, or a new Ivanka & Jared Foundation, you'd have a point rather than grasping at straws.
If you started a world bank outreach, I wouldn't myself duty-bound to oppose it.
|
On May 27 2017 08:34 Introvert wrote:I'm more amused by her reaction to the hiring of anyone right of center. "Why?" LOL. But don't worry-- there's no echo chamber, and she's really not that left-wing.
Is it bad that there's an echo chamber on scientifically resolved subjects such as whether climate change is happening? Should there not be an echo chamber?
|
They were awfully eager to obtain back channels to Russia.
|
While I don't want to reignite any of the cultural appropriation stuff, I think I have an anecdote that does show things can get even more absurd than this Portland thing.
I have a friend who grew up in Africa but is Caucasian (her parents work supplying aid in foreign countries). She once got censured by a university for planning a party themed around African culture because someone reported her for being culturally insensitive by appropriating African culture. Of course, the person reporting didn't actually check if she was African, they just saw that she was white and assumed the worst.
That's the kind of thing that makes it hard for me to say political correctness doesn't go too far at times.
|
On May 27 2017 08:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:34 Introvert wrote:I'm more amused by her reaction to the hiring of anyone right of center. "Why?" LOL. But don't worry-- there's no echo chamber, and she's really not that left-wing. Is it bad that there's an echo chamber on scientifically resolved subjects such as whether climate change is happening? Should there not be an echo chamber?
On May 27 2017 08:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:34 Introvert wrote:I'm more amused by her reaction to the hiring of anyone right of center. "Why?" LOL. But don't worry-- there's no echo chamber, and she's really not that left-wing. Is it bad that there's an echo chamber on scientifically resolved subjects such as whether climate change is happening? Should there not be an echo chamber?
Cute.
But yes, that's totally what I meant.
|
On May 27 2017 08:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 08:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 07:53 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
Giving the Trump Foundation money is literally giving Trump money because Trump has repeatedly been caught double dealing and fined by the IRS for doing so. Making a donation to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Fund is not giving Hillary money. The World Bank donation is comparable to the Presidential Library donation. Donating to a Clinton Foundation is not comparable to donating to the Trump Foundation because only one of them has been found to be used as a slush fund to help the founder.
I'm disappointed in you Danglars. Not surprised, but still disappointed. I again find reason to question your judgement. Tarring the world bank, or asking the reader to consider it another kind of presidential library, is absolutely born from this elections hysteria. If you consider two dissimilar things similar in your mind, we will forever not come to terms on it, not even on the grounds of argument. I'm truly saddened that your politics has gotten in the way of your critiques of charity, but hopefully some years will soften your views. I have nothing against the World Bank, nor against the donation. I am simply drawing attention to Trump's hypocrisy. He's the one who believes that a charitable donation must be judged only by the source, regardless of how the money is spent. I do not. Cease your straw men. Straw men? I called reporter's characterizations of this fund as "Ivanka's fund" fake news (it is) and in response I got only movement of goalposts to broad corruption. The world bank announced a fund created to help women entrepreneurs at an Ivanka event and Saudi Arabia/UAE sign on. But left-wing politics is a hostile mistress, so immediately this is the Ivanka Fund. It's immediately hypocrisy to criticize Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (hmm I wonder who chooses the leadership of that one). But, you know, Trump's bad and a hypocrite so we can shape the story as we wish without regard for truth content. He should be grinning from ear to ear to know all his faults get filtered through three false stories for every one true, so he's able to claim all of it is bogus and maybe a third of America will believe it. You're doing a great job helping him out on this. The story is Trump's hypocrisy. How are you not getting this? Come on. It's not hard. Trump said that donations from Saudi Arabia should be refused and then presented this donation as a success. That's hypocrisy. You can surely see why that's hypocrisy. That's what their point is. That's the story. The story is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy I just explained. It's not fake news. Trump really said that Saudi Arabian donations should be refused and returned. I'm calling attention to the false characterization with clear intent to a different kind of hypocrisy. Ivanka Fund and Clinton Foundation because reporters remembered how effective that line of attack was during the campaign. It's not hard but you can't see it. The media published fake news through twitter intending to mislead on where the money went, and Trump tweeted about SA & the Clinton Foundation in the past--both true. If the Ivanka Fund was Trump Foundation, or a new Ivanka & Jared Foundation, you'd have a point rather than grasping at straws. If you started a world bank outreach, I wouldn't myself duty-bound to oppose it.
There is zero chance that Saudi Arabia would attempt to gain influence with the Trump family through a donation to a charity started by Ivanka. Clearly it's just liberal media fake news.
|
On May 27 2017 08:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:45 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 08:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 07:53 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
Giving the Trump Foundation money is literally giving Trump money because Trump has repeatedly been caught double dealing and fined by the IRS for doing so. Making a donation to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Fund is not giving Hillary money. The World Bank donation is comparable to the Presidential Library donation. Donating to a Clinton Foundation is not comparable to donating to the Trump Foundation because only one of them has been found to be used as a slush fund to help the founder.
I'm disappointed in you Danglars. Not surprised, but still disappointed. I again find reason to question your judgement. Tarring the world bank, or asking the reader to consider it another kind of presidential library, is absolutely born from this elections hysteria. If you consider two dissimilar things similar in your mind, we will forever not come to terms on it, not even on the grounds of argument. I'm truly saddened that your politics has gotten in the way of your critiques of charity, but hopefully some years will soften your views. I have nothing against the World Bank, nor against the donation. I am simply drawing attention to Trump's hypocrisy. He's the one who believes that a charitable donation must be judged only by the source, regardless of how the money is spent. I do not. Cease your straw men. Straw men? I called reporter's characterizations of this fund as "Ivanka's fund" fake news (it is) and in response I got only movement of goalposts to broad corruption. The world bank announced a fund created to help women entrepreneurs at an Ivanka event and Saudi Arabia/UAE sign on. But left-wing politics is a hostile mistress, so immediately this is the Ivanka Fund. It's immediately hypocrisy to criticize Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (hmm I wonder who chooses the leadership of that one). But, you know, Trump's bad and a hypocrite so we can shape the story as we wish without regard for truth content. He should be grinning from ear to ear to know all his faults get filtered through three false stories for every one true, so he's able to claim all of it is bogus and maybe a third of America will believe it. You're doing a great job helping him out on this. The story is Trump's hypocrisy. How are you not getting this? Come on. It's not hard. Trump said that donations from Saudi Arabia should be refused and then presented this donation as a success. That's hypocrisy. You can surely see why that's hypocrisy. That's what their point is. That's the story. The story is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy I just explained. It's not fake news. Trump really said that Saudi Arabian donations should be refused and returned. I'm calling attention to the false characterization with clear intent to a different kind of hypocrisy. Ivanka Fund and Clinton Foundation because reporters remembered how effective that line of attack was during the campaign. It's not hard but you can't see it. The media published fake news through twitter intending to mislead on where the money went, and Trump tweeted about SA & the Clinton Foundation in the past--both true. If the Ivanka Fund was Trump Foundation, or a new Ivanka & Jared Foundation, you'd have a point rather than grasping at straws. If you started a world bank outreach, I wouldn't myself duty-bound to oppose it. There is zero chance that Saudi Arabia would attempt to gain influence with the Trump family through a donation to a charity started by Ivanka. Clearly it's just liberal media fake news.
Jeebus, after all the trouble Trump went through to divide his business/family affairs from the presidency, how dare you implying that? You working for fake news central?
|
On May 27 2017 08:36 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:33 Sbrubbles wrote:I assume these interceptions of Russian comunication were already common knowledge, otherwise this piece of news lets the cat out of the bag. The fact that the US monitors Russian diplomats in the US is not and has not been a secret for a long while. Its precisely why - as the article notes - Russia has communications networks which allow secret comms between diplomats and the kremlin. I would be surprised if most large countries or technically sophisticated ones didn't have some sort of way to communicate securely between embassies and their countries. It simply makes sense. Now the level of sophistication and how those things are set up thats the real secret.
Well, then it was mighty stupid for the Russians to say something damning like this about their comrade trump if they knew they were being monitored!
|
On May 27 2017 04:56 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
That being said, I try to presume ignorance as long as I can, but I think the "conversations" that have to include me not offending someone who suggests real racism ended 60 years ago belong about 40 years in the past. Feel free to show me where I suggested this, but when you do, quote the entire post  Let me make this simple for you: Of course racism still exists, but to change the definition of racism to include microaggressions and subconscious thought processes minimizes the real damage being done by actual racism. Its simply creating a huge problem out of a tiny one in order to push a specific political agenda. And yes, I'm saying that microaggressions are a tiny problem, subconscious racism is a tiny problem. These things are simply a part of human nature, and I would wager that they are equally present amongst people of all races.
You said:
If you want to see racism, read the testimony of black people 60-100 years ago. That's racism. To redefine it in terms of microaggressions (which it seems to me you're trying to do) is to completely ignore the progress that's been made in this area. You can't just redefine the world in terms that fit your agenda.
There is zero need to go back 60-100 years to find stories of racism. Just the other day a cop that shot an unarmed non-aggressive black man who just needed help and got off scot-free.
less than 60 years ago white people were still experimenting on black people like lab animals.
|
|
|
On May 27 2017 08:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 08:45 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 08:04 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2017 07:53 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote:
Giving the Trump Foundation money is literally giving Trump money because Trump has repeatedly been caught double dealing and fined by the IRS for doing so. Making a donation to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Fund is not giving Hillary money. The World Bank donation is comparable to the Presidential Library donation. Donating to a Clinton Foundation is not comparable to donating to the Trump Foundation because only one of them has been found to be used as a slush fund to help the founder.
I'm disappointed in you Danglars. Not surprised, but still disappointed. I again find reason to question your judgement. Tarring the world bank, or asking the reader to consider it another kind of presidential library, is absolutely born from this elections hysteria. If you consider two dissimilar things similar in your mind, we will forever not come to terms on it, not even on the grounds of argument. I'm truly saddened that your politics has gotten in the way of your critiques of charity, but hopefully some years will soften your views. I have nothing against the World Bank, nor against the donation. I am simply drawing attention to Trump's hypocrisy. He's the one who believes that a charitable donation must be judged only by the source, regardless of how the money is spent. I do not. Cease your straw men. Straw men? I called reporter's characterizations of this fund as "Ivanka's fund" fake news (it is) and in response I got only movement of goalposts to broad corruption. The world bank announced a fund created to help women entrepreneurs at an Ivanka event and Saudi Arabia/UAE sign on. But left-wing politics is a hostile mistress, so immediately this is the Ivanka Fund. It's immediately hypocrisy to criticize Hillary and the Clinton Foundation (hmm I wonder who chooses the leadership of that one). But, you know, Trump's bad and a hypocrite so we can shape the story as we wish without regard for truth content. He should be grinning from ear to ear to know all his faults get filtered through three false stories for every one true, so he's able to claim all of it is bogus and maybe a third of America will believe it. You're doing a great job helping him out on this. The story is Trump's hypocrisy. How are you not getting this? Come on. It's not hard. Trump said that donations from Saudi Arabia should be refused and then presented this donation as a success. That's hypocrisy. You can surely see why that's hypocrisy. That's what their point is. That's the story. The story is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy I just explained. It's not fake news. Trump really said that Saudi Arabian donations should be refused and returned. I'm calling attention to the false characterization with clear intent to a different kind of hypocrisy. Ivanka Fund and Clinton Foundation because reporters remembered how effective that line of attack was during the campaign. It's not hard but you can't see it. The media published fake news through twitter intending to mislead on where the money went, and Trump tweeted about SA & the Clinton Foundation in the past--both true. If the Ivanka Fund was Trump Foundation, or a new Ivanka & Jared Foundation, you'd have a point rather than grasping at straws. If you started a world bank outreach, I wouldn't myself duty-bound to oppose it. There is zero chance that Saudi Arabia would attempt to gain influence with the Trump family through a donation to a charity started by Ivanka. Clearly it's just liberal media fake news.
She neither started a new charity nor controls how this charity spends the money.
|
On May 27 2017 08:25 Mohdoo wrote:
As predicted, Jared the next to go. Who do we think is next?
Who is left? Only Ivanka, and then Trump himself.
|
If Jared is incriminated it will go to Trump 1000%. Trump Jared and Ivanka are probably part of the only real inner circle.
|
Earlier today I was just thinking it had been a quiet week and was wondering what crazy thing was going to drop before the end of the week
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
