|
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 May 27 2017 06:23 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:This makes no sense. you act as if someone can only be solving one problem at a time ever. lets add on top of that the fact that this is an american problem being discussed in the US politics thread. not to mention you are complaining about someone else complaining about x that isn't as important as Y so why dont you stop your self serving grandstanding? in your humble opinion....
It's almost as if you can't read since I said of course someone can do both. Which is getting more backing and which deserves it? Like I said, personal preference. As for doing both, please direct me to BLM using their influence and exposure to direct attention and funds to the food crisis. They can obviously do both, so it won't take you long to flood me with examples. Anyway, it doesn't seem you want to address my point, so yea. Enjoy your high horse.
If they choose to fight a battle at home before they even begin to fight a battle abroad that's their choice. Far be it for me, or you as non members to deign what moral stances individuals should be taking. where is your outrage over the famine? or is it because they are africans suffering that african americans should care particularly more than non african americans should? because that in itself is an example of that "unconcious racism" that someone else pointed out. If im understanding your point, you are saying that because they are black, and because far worse things are happening in africa, they shouldn't be "complaining" about what is happening here.
keep in mind you said
These conversations are always silly to me. 'You are complaining about that when this is happening!!' So? Complaining about complaining is a great past time for people but it gets a little old. Put your support wherever you feel it is most needed, or closest to you. For most, it is for things they are personally affected by. So for black people in America, 'shooting us in the streets' might be worth it to you. But please put stuff in perspective. Maybe 100 black people have been killed so far this year by the police. Of those, some percentage were bad shots.
Then you say
But lets take it at 100. How much energy should be expanded on highlighting those 100 people? That's up for each person to decide. 400,000 children die in Africa each year due to malnutrition. There is a food crisis in Somalia right frigging now. Does it get the attention in black America as much as police shootings? Which do you think would save more lives? Anyone can do both of course, but I sure ain't seeing the same push.
TLDR. There is always something more concerning going on that deserves more attention. Complaining about X because Y is more important is self serving grandstanding. In my humble opinion.
who are you to decide what BLM puts their effor towards when you just said that they should put it where
they feel its most needed.
|
On May 27 2017 06:43 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 06:23 dp wrote:On May 27 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:This makes no sense. you act as if someone can only be solving one problem at a time ever. lets add on top of that the fact that this is an american problem being discussed in the US politics thread. not to mention you are complaining about someone else complaining about x that isn't as important as Y so why dont you stop your self serving grandstanding? in your humble opinion....
It's almost as if you can't read since I said of course someone can do both. Which is getting more backing and which deserves it? Like I said, personal preference. As for doing both, please direct me to BLM using their influence and exposure to direct attention and funds to the food crisis. They can obviously do both, so it won't take you long to flood me with examples. Anyway, it doesn't seem you want to address my point, so yea. Enjoy your high horse. If they choose to fight a battle at home before they even begin to fight a battle abroad that's their choice. Far be it for me, or you as non members to deign what moral stances individuals should be taking. where is your outrage over the famine? or is it because they are africans suffering that african americans should care particularly more than non african americans should? because that in itself is an example of that "unconcious racism" that someone else pointed out. If im understanding your point, you are saying that because they are black, and because far worse things are happening in africa, they shouldn't be "complaining" about what is happening here. keep in mind you said Show nested quote +These conversations are always silly to me. 'You are complaining about that when this is happening!!' So? Complaining about complaining is a great past time for people but it gets a little old. Put your support wherever you feel it is most needed, or closest to you. For most, it is for things they are personally affected by. So for black people in America, 'shooting us in the streets' might be worth it to you. But please put stuff in perspective. Maybe 100 black people have been killed so far this year by the police. Of those, some percentage were bad shots. Then you say Show nested quote +But lets take it at 100. How much energy should be expanded on highlighting those 100 people? That's up for each person to decide. 400,000 children die in Africa each year due to malnutrition. There is a food crisis in Somalia right frigging now. Does it get the attention in black America as much as police shootings? Which do you think would save more lives? Anyone can do both of course, but I sure ain't seeing the same push.
TLDR. There is always something more concerning going on that deserves more attention. Complaining about X because Y is more important is self serving grandstanding. In my humble opinion. who are you to decide what BLM puts their effor towards when you just said that they should put it where they feel its most needed.
I am honestly unsure how you find my position confusing. You are literally highlighting it in your response, and acting as if you are refuting it.
And in regards to BLM, members and the organization can put their support behind whatever they want. I don't knock them for it, and I am saying the same should apply across the board. That is the point. Try to keep up.
As to your random attempt to assert my statement about them being racist, really? You stated people can do both. I point to an organization that's name is Black Lives Matter. And said to point to them splitting their attention to the famine. As a point. That although people can do both, most don't, or at least not with the same fervor. Again, simple stuff here.
|
On May 27 2017 06:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:25 Gahlo wrote:
BRB Gonna go around the corner to the Golden Dragon and tell all the Cambodians they can't sell Chinese food anymore. When it's staffed by Chinese people I'm gonna tell them they can't serve General Tso's chicken unless they change their sign because that was invented in America. General tso's was invented in taiwan by the nationalists that fled the mainland and popularized by the immigrants to went to america instead of staying. Extra sugar and the steamed broccoli is the american version of it. (1) The fact that non chinese asians have to make their restaurants "chinese food" is beacuse americans wouldn't regognize anything other then a handful of asian foood cultures. (2) My favorite Chinese food place was started by a north korean who swarm to Japan during the Korean war. My favorite Mexican place was started by a bunch of Navajo people.
1. Fair point, I guess I was just misled.
2. This just furthers the problem, or "problem" depending on viewpoint.
|
Can't read the full story (paywall), but this part is already hilarious
One major change under consideration would vet the president’s social media posts through a team of lawyers, who would decide if any needed to be adjusted or curtailed. The idea, said one of Mr. Trump’s advisers, is to create a system so that tweets “don’t go from the president’s mind out to the universe.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-eyeing-white-house-shakeup-1495831679
|
About Gianforte winning despite assaulting a journalist, the media never talks about this, but voters can in fact be 'wrong'.
We need more voter shaming. Yes, Gianforte slammed a The Guardian journalist, who was being 'annoying', and The Guardian is a 'left wing, sophisticated, European media outlet'. So to me it is no surprise that some Gianforte voters love what he did.
In fact, I stand by my position that Trump has a subset of voters who would approve of Trump literally jailing journalists. He might even get approval for torturing journalists. I mean, can we really rule that out, at this point? Trump bragged about sexually assaulting woman, and that won him votes.
The real story is that a segment of the US electorate is deplorable and needs to be educated, or else democracy will fail. That is the real story that needs to be talked about. (despite the Russia investigation and climate change, of course).
|
On May 27 2017 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 05:12 Doodsmack wrote:On May 27 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On May 27 2017 02:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 27 2017 02:08 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 21:49 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2017 21:35 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2017 17:17 Slaughter wrote:On May 26 2017 15:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Better some clowns to cause a little havoc than a slick crew that oppose my interests! And hell, you said it buddy, sticking it to the Democrat members with his supreme court pick (RIP Garland). I can't think of a better successor to that suave Obama. Everybody's going so crazy and it's absolutely marvelous. He's doing such ludicrous stuff, but not to be outdone, the media sprinkles in three ridiculous accusations for every one solid. I'm trending below 50% agreement with what Trump does, for sure. But the Dems didn't run a Lieberman type, they gave me an unsatisfactory second choice. I'm having some trouble thinking up a likely Dem candidate I'd actually consider better than Trump for my political views. Political churning, at this point, is vastly preferable to a determined push leftward. I guess that is the difference between you and me. If Trump was the Democratic nominee I would have voted Republican despite the ideological differences. Trump is just that bad and it was obvious from his campaign. The difference between you and me is I think America's institutions, or what's worth preserving that's left of them, are resilient enough to last against one knucklehead. To some extent, the left's screwed the goose by investing too heavily in justifying some very bad shit by demonizing Trump. Bad enough to have partisan hacks leaking at every level of the executive, but particularly in the intelligence agencies? Fuck no. Bad enough for reporters to make up stories, lie by omission, ell deceptive half-truths, abandon standards for source vetting? Hell no. In some useful ways and not really to Trump's credit, he's revealed how entitled D.C. feels to undermine rather than personally oppose. Isn't Fox the one that had to retract a story that tried to deflect away from the Trump dumpster fire? Last I checked the vast majority of stories about Trump have been proven, often by Trumps own twitter tirades. Then you probably also believe that Comey was denied funding by Trump, Saudi money went into Ivanka Fund, Spicer hid in hedges from reporters, Rosenstein threatened to resign, the AHCA made rape a pre-existing condition, Mnunchin's bank foreclosed for 27 cents, and Trump threatened to invade Mexico. I wonder if the strategy is to keep a continuing stream of fake news and wake up the next morning not remembering all the retractions to keep people tied down pointing it out. several of those definitely happened, a couple are very likely, a couple are mostly true, and the only one that i'm pretty sure is fake is invading mexico. I guess what you want to be true can be true in this age. To take one of your examples - the fact that the Ivanka-related charity is run by the IMF rather than Ivanka herself does not exactly insulate her from any concerns of corruption. It is just an excuse for you to focus on the media rather than the underlying issue. Lol. It's World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Fund. I'm pretty impressed that the stories + Show Spoiler + that this is Clinton's foundation accusations redux gets effortlessly switched to some broad corruption charge. I don't know, what exactly do you hate about the world bank? If people you don't like campaign for charitable causes, does it taint the action? Are you kidding? It's exactly like the Clinton situation. In the Clinton situation the Saudi donation was spent on a public library while the Republicans screamed corruption. Neither Trump nor Clinton got a direct cash donation from the Saudis, if Trump thought Clinton was fair game then Ivanka is fair game too.
The Clinton Family Foundation is nothing like the World Bank. Convolute the corruption accusations as you will, this is just another celebrity doing their thing with causes. World Bank is not a Trump enterprise and its women's causes and drives are not Trump-appointed players. It's like Trump hysteria overtakes even charitable organizations and everybody feels obligated to defend fake news because they can't examine Trump objectively. Trump 2018 starting way the hell early, and god knows he needs it.
And for the shitposters, yes if the Saudis gave Trump's Foundation a hundred billion during this trip, I'd have a problem with it. Abuse of office for "Ivanka's Fund" is what they're going for, the twitter of several mainstream journalists, and it just exposes the current.
|
United States43960 Posts
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.
|
Silly KwarK, the setup is immune from the possibility of corruption, I don't know how you can't see that.
|
On May 27 2017 07:16 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 06:43 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 27 2017 06:23 dp wrote:On May 27 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:This makes no sense. you act as if someone can only be solving one problem at a time ever. lets add on top of that the fact that this is an american problem being discussed in the US politics thread. not to mention you are complaining about someone else complaining about x that isn't as important as Y so why dont you stop your self serving grandstanding? in your humble opinion....
It's almost as if you can't read since I said of course someone can do both. Which is getting more backing and which deserves it? Like I said, personal preference. As for doing both, please direct me to BLM using their influence and exposure to direct attention and funds to the food crisis. They can obviously do both, so it won't take you long to flood me with examples. Anyway, it doesn't seem you want to address my point, so yea. Enjoy your high horse. If they choose to fight a battle at home before they even begin to fight a battle abroad that's their choice. Far be it for me, or you as non members to deign what moral stances individuals should be taking. where is your outrage over the famine? or is it because they are africans suffering that african americans should care particularly more than non african americans should? because that in itself is an example of that "unconcious racism" that someone else pointed out. If im understanding your point, you are saying that because they are black, and because far worse things are happening in africa, they shouldn't be "complaining" about what is happening here. keep in mind you said These conversations are always silly to me. 'You are complaining about that when this is happening!!' So? Complaining about complaining is a great past time for people but it gets a little old. Put your support wherever you feel it is most needed, or closest to you. For most, it is for things they are personally affected by. So for black people in America, 'shooting us in the streets' might be worth it to you. But please put stuff in perspective. Maybe 100 black people have been killed so far this year by the police. Of those, some percentage were bad shots. Then you say But lets take it at 100. How much energy should be expanded on highlighting those 100 people? That's up for each person to decide. 400,000 children die in Africa each year due to malnutrition. There is a food crisis in Somalia right frigging now. Does it get the attention in black America as much as police shootings? Which do you think would save more lives? Anyone can do both of course, but I sure ain't seeing the same push.
TLDR. There is always something more concerning going on that deserves more attention. Complaining about X because Y is more important is self serving grandstanding. In my humble opinion. who are you to decide what BLM puts their effor towards when you just said that they should put it where they feel its most needed. I am honestly unsure how you find my position confusing. You are literally highlighting it in your response, and acting as if you are refuting it. And in regards to BLM, members and the organization can put their support behind whatever they want. I don't knock them for it, and I am saying the same should apply across the board. That is the point. Try to keep up. As to your random attempt to assert my statement about them being racist, really? You stated people can do both. I point to an organization that's name is Black Lives Matter. And said to point to them splitting their attention to the famine. As a point. That although people can do both, most don't, or at least not with the same fervor. Again, simple stuff here.
I am going to try one more time in good faith assuming you haven't been able to pin point the contradiction in your post. You called the whole argument silly because groups like blm support American issues and not Somalia in the same way. Then you say people can support whatever they want. So why is it silly if they can and should support what they want and not what someone else has decided is a bigger issue? Then you go on and call it self serving grandstanding. Do you see the issue?
This is my last post on the topic btw as I don't want to veer the thread off topic.
|
On May 27 2017 07:25 Ernaine wrote:
About Gianforte winning despite assaulting a journalist, the media never talks about this, but voters can in fact be 'wrong'.
We need more voter shaming. Yes, Gianforte slammed a The Guardian journalist, who was being 'annoying', and The Guardian is a 'left wing, sophisticated, European media outlet'. So to me it is no surprise that some Gianforte voters love what he did.
In fact, I stand by my position that Trump has a subset of voters who would approve of Trump literally jailing journalists. He might even get approval for torturing journalists. I mean, can we really rule that out, at this point? Trump bragged about sexually assaulting woman, and that won him votes.
The real story is that a segment of the US electorate is deplorable and needs to be educated, or else democracy will fail. That is the real story that needs to be talked about. (despite the Russia investigation and climate change, of course).
it is a problem indeed. all electorates have that segment of people; and like all people, they hate being called out on their failings, and won't admit to it. and in a democracy, there's always someone willing to say to those things aren't failings in order to win the votes of those people.
the ideal of democracy has enough cachet that it's hard to attack voters for being "wrong" no matter how objectively true it is.
|
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.
|
United States43960 Posts
On May 27 2017 07:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
Breaking, updated:
Seriously, what the fuck.
|
On May 27 2017 07:41 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 07:16 dp wrote:On May 27 2017 06:43 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 27 2017 06:23 dp wrote:On May 27 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:This makes no sense. you act as if someone can only be solving one problem at a time ever. lets add on top of that the fact that this is an american problem being discussed in the US politics thread. not to mention you are complaining about someone else complaining about x that isn't as important as Y so why dont you stop your self serving grandstanding? in your humble opinion....
It's almost as if you can't read since I said of course someone can do both. Which is getting more backing and which deserves it? Like I said, personal preference. As for doing both, please direct me to BLM using their influence and exposure to direct attention and funds to the food crisis. They can obviously do both, so it won't take you long to flood me with examples. Anyway, it doesn't seem you want to address my point, so yea. Enjoy your high horse. If they choose to fight a battle at home before they even begin to fight a battle abroad that's their choice. Far be it for me, or you as non members to deign what moral stances individuals should be taking. where is your outrage over the famine? or is it because they are africans suffering that african americans should care particularly more than non african americans should? because that in itself is an example of that "unconcious racism" that someone else pointed out. If im understanding your point, you are saying that because they are black, and because far worse things are happening in africa, they shouldn't be "complaining" about what is happening here. keep in mind you said These conversations are always silly to me. 'You are complaining about that when this is happening!!' So? Complaining about complaining is a great past time for people but it gets a little old. Put your support wherever you feel it is most needed, or closest to you. For most, it is for things they are personally affected by. So for black people in America, 'shooting us in the streets' might be worth it to you. But please put stuff in perspective. Maybe 100 black people have been killed so far this year by the police. Of those, some percentage were bad shots. Then you say But lets take it at 100. How much energy should be expanded on highlighting those 100 people? That's up for each person to decide. 400,000 children die in Africa each year due to malnutrition. There is a food crisis in Somalia right frigging now. Does it get the attention in black America as much as police shootings? Which do you think would save more lives? Anyone can do both of course, but I sure ain't seeing the same push.
TLDR. There is always something more concerning going on that deserves more attention. Complaining about X because Y is more important is self serving grandstanding. In my humble opinion. who are you to decide what BLM puts their effor towards when you just said that they should put it where they feel its most needed. I am honestly unsure how you find my position confusing. You are literally highlighting it in your response, and acting as if you are refuting it. And in regards to BLM, members and the organization can put their support behind whatever they want. I don't knock them for it, and I am saying the same should apply across the board. That is the point. Try to keep up. As to your random attempt to assert my statement about them being racist, really? You stated people can do both. I point to an organization that's name is Black Lives Matter. And said to point to them splitting their attention to the famine. As a point. That although people can do both, most don't, or at least not with the same fervor. Again, simple stuff here. I am going to try one more time in good faith assuming you haven't been able to pin point the contradiction in your post. You called the whole argument silly because groups like blm support American issues and not Somalia in the same way. Then you say people can support whatever they want. So why is it silly if they can and should support what they want and not what someone else has decided is a bigger issue? Then you go on and call it self serving grandstanding. Do you see the issue? This is my last post on the topic btw as I don't want to veer the thread off topic.
I will try to put this succinctly as possible. GH was asserting white people complaining about being accused of appropriations are absurd, given the treatment of POC in the US. I contested that people can complain about whatever they want, and that it is normally something that they are or could be personally affected by. And that trying to measure what is ok to complain about on a scale, and putting your concerns above others is grandstanding. I then offered an example 'the famine' as a counter point to say it is a much larger threat to people, ya know, being able to live, than police shootings.
My point was that there is always something that could be conceived as more important, more pressing and more worth talking or addressing. To say that other's concerns shouldn't matter because your concerns are more important being a bad argument is the point. Somehow you are trying to twist that assertion into exactly what I am arguing against.
And I also will be back on topic moving forward.
|
|
|
The leaks moving towards Russian intelligence communications leave me wondering tho in how far this complicates the CIA's job.
Yes a Russian ambassador should know his communications are being monitored but surely they(Russia) would have preferred this info did not become public, so there is a leak/spy somewhere they didn't anticipate.
|
On May 27 2017 07:19 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 06:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 27 2017 05:25 Gahlo wrote:
BRB Gonna go around the corner to the Golden Dragon and tell all the Cambodians they can't sell Chinese food anymore. When it's staffed by Chinese people I'm gonna tell them they can't serve General Tso's chicken unless they change their sign because that was invented in America. General tso's was invented in taiwan by the nationalists that fled the mainland and popularized by the immigrants to went to america instead of staying. Extra sugar and the steamed broccoli is the american version of it. (1) The fact that non chinese asians have to make their restaurants "chinese food" is beacuse americans wouldn't regognize anything other then a handful of asian foood cultures. (2) My favorite Chinese food place was started by a north korean who swarm to Japan during the Korean war. My favorite Mexican place was started by a bunch of Navajo people. 1. Fair point, I guess I was just misled. 2. This just furthers the problem, or "problem" depending on viewpoint.
I wouldn't be too worried considering how much else on the average Chinese restaurant menu is american invented. The second point illustrates how dumb the whole argument is. No one would differentiate between Sicilian and mainland Italian pizza at a pizza store. No one would make a french restaurant that differentiates between the north and south. how many "German food" or "English food" places are there? People from other asian nations call themselves chinese or thai beacuse those are brands that have value.
The issue that makes the whole cultural appropriation issue stupid mainly is that food and culture in general is something that should be shared and mixed with other cultures. Should white people be pissed at bollywood for appropriating white culture? should white people be pissed at kpop and jpop for appropriating white culture? Its just people wanting to be mad at white people for no reason other then they think that pissing off white people will make them give them the things they want for no logical reason.
|
On May 27 2017 08:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
As predicted, Jared the next to go. Who do we think is next?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
