So stick to the topic. Why does Trumps use of foundation funds for personal debt bother you?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
'I've never encountered anything so brazen'
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
So stick to the topic. Why does Trumps use of foundation funds for personal debt bother you?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383
A $2 million commitment arranged by the nonprofit Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 went to a for-profit company part-owned by friends of the Clintons
The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world’s problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.
The $2 million commitment was placed on the agenda for a September 2010 conference of the Clinton Global Initiative at Mr. Clinton’s urging, according to a document from the period and people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Clinton also personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year, said people with knowledge of the endorsement.
The Clinton Global Initiative’s help for a for-profit company part-owned by Clinton friends poses a different issue. Under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren’t supposed to act in anyone’s private interest but instead in the public interest, on broad issues such as education or poverty.
“The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.[/QUOT]
Another red herring reply.
But do you mind it going to pay off a Trump personal debt. The topic has nothing to do with Fisher House. It has to do with Trump's illegal use of funds from other people who wanted to help veterans.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Sure.
Obama isn't running for President again.
The Southern border has been open for 200+ years. Did you have trouble with previous administrations leaving it open? The Northern border s open. You got a problem with that one too?
Who does the hiring?
Trump is part of the outsourcing.
Umm the GOP spent 19 months on some emails and the lady wasn't charged with anything
I'll offer two guesses, neither provable (by me):
1. If HRC were someone other than a prominent politician, charges would have been made.
2. The FBI director saw her actions as stupid and careless but not treasonous, and decided that throwing a bomb into the presidential contest would result in so much collateral damage that he chose not to make charges. That's not the reasons he gave, but I still think this was as much a pragmatic decision as a judicial one.
Then I'll note the old saying, "One cannot fight with a skunk and expect to come out smelling like a rose." IMO, we've got two skunks in the woodshed this year. Trump is a chameleon who will adopt any color in the spectrum in order to close the deal. He consistently plays to our worst characteristics. Clinton has shown repeatedly a contempt for the "little people" in her realm except when it makes good publicity to do otherwise, and she has a Nixonesque obsession with unnecessary secrecy.
Anybody here willing to run as a write-in candidate?
I'll offer two guesses, neither provable (by me):
1. If HRC were someone other than a prominent politician, charges would have been made.
2. The FBI director saw her actions as stupid and careless but not treasonous, and decided that throwing a bomb into the presidential contest would result in so much collateral damage that he chose not to make charges. That's not the reasons he gave, but I still think this was as much a pragmatic decision as a judicial one.
Then I'll note the old saying, "One cannot fight with a skunk and expect to come out smelling like a rose." IMO, we've got two skunks in the woodshed this year. Trump is a chameleon who will adopt any color in the spectrum in order to close the deal. He consistently plays to our worst characteristics. Clinton has shown repeatedly a contempt for the "little people" in her realm except when it makes good publicity to do otherwise, and she has a Nixonesque obsession with unnecessary secrecy.
Anybody here willing to run as a write-in candidate?
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Let me know because I'm writing somebody in.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Thomas Robb not available?
I would be glad to directly address your topic as soon as you directly, rationally and honestly address your motive for repeating the subject of this topic.
Originally posted be Benjamin in CTB's first thread on this topic:
Even if true, which I doubt, probably just desperate attempts to even out the charges against Hillary, 2 wrongs wouldn't make this a right for Hillary. ...and Hillary's "charitable foundation" goes way beyond any standards of making a reasonable comparison between the two events.
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...to-settle-legal-problems.101394/#post-2255688
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Simple , you and others have not address he OP. It has all been attacking Hillary and nothing about Trump and his misuse of foundation funds. Most folk are throwing out red herrings and hoping we will run down false rabbit trails. So, please address the topic.
Would it bother you if you gave to Trump's foundation and then found that he was using those fundsw to pay off his own personal debt? Please answer. Thanks.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
When being presented with an argument, I usually begin by weighing the rationale behind them raising such an issue followed by examining one's motive for doing so, especially when he attempts to attack the character of the person on one side of the debate while unwittingly neglecting to recognize the blatantly obvious and overwhelming hypocrisy concerning the other person in the debate.
Therefore, being any conclusions in the matter of judging the character between the two in this debate for the purpose of making the best choice (AND, the motive of your argument is undeniably to support one side, Hillary) must be weighted through a rational and reasonable comparison of the charge of the misuse of charitable funds...
In this case you have requested your opposition neglect the weight of that comparison while you are trying to draw the focus toward only attacking one side, this brings your motive for doing so into the picture. It would be foolish to take up your argument under those terms as it neglects coming to rational conclusions in the matter of who would be the best choice in truth, all things considered, which if you are being honest is the point of your argument (who is the best choice) to begin with. Period.
In fact, it is you that has tried to create a rabbit trail with such an argument.
Okay, lunch is over.
I can tell you what the problem is - this looks just like another WaPo Trump hit piece. Check out all the conditional language:
may have violated "self-dealing" laws
If he's using other people's money
Trump could be found in violation of self-dealing rules
could require him to pay penalties
could find him in violation of the state's charity laws
Looks like a hatchet job by the DNC to distract from the real problems of the Clinton Foundation, although you don't want to hear this. It's just sloppy reporting, no info on the amount Trump put in this foundation and this:
Would it bother you if you gave to Trump's foundation and then found that he was using those funds to pay off his own personal debt? Please answer. Thanks.
is actually a good question, although it's hypothetical as well - would depend on how much and when. Doubt Trump really needs to dip into this for 258k but the WaPo should have asked this woman and her husband this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon
Actual big-time donors. But they didn't.
may have violated "self-dealing" laws
If he's using other people's money
Trump could be found in violation of self-dealing rules
could require him to pay penalties
could find him in violation of the state's charity laws
Looks like a hatchet job by the DNC to distract from the real problems of the Clinton Foundation, although you don't want to hear this. It's just sloppy reporting, no info on the amount Trump put in this foundation and this:
Would it bother you if you gave to Trump's foundation and then found that he was using those funds to pay off his own personal debt? Please answer. Thanks.
is actually a good question, although it's hypothetical as well - would depend on how much and when. Doubt Trump really needs to dip into this for 258k but the WaPo should have asked this woman and her husband this question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon
Actual big-time donors. But they didn't.
You have written a long piece, but still have not said how you would feel if your donation was being used to pay a Trump personal debt. Surely, no matter how much or little you support him, you should have a simple answer to that question.
When being presented with an argument, I usually begin by weighing the rationale behind them raising such an issue followed by examining one's motive for doing so, especially when he attempts to attack the character of the person on one side of the debate while unwittingly neglecting to recognize the blatantly obvious and overwhelming hypocrisy concerning the other person in the debate.
Therefore, being any conclusions in the matter of judging the character between the two in this debate for the purpose of making the best choice (AND, the motive of your argument is undeniably to support one side, Hillary) must be weighted through a rational and reasonable comparison of the charge of the misuse of charitable funds...
In this case you have requested your opposition neglect the weight of that comparison while you are trying to draw the focus toward only attacking one side, this brings your motive for doing so into the picture. It would be foolish to take up your argument under those terms as it neglects coming to rational conclusions in the matter of who would be the best choice in truth, all things considered, which if you are being honest is the point of your argument (who is the best choice) to begin with. Period.
In fact, it is you that has tried to create a rabbit trail with such an argument.
Okay, lunch is over.
When writing about matters such as this you have to use worlds such as you described or be in danger of being sued for slander. That is why in criminal writings you see the world suspect instead of criminal. The person is not legally a criminal until they are convicted. To call them a criminal is to open yourself up to being sued.
To be clear I am not a supporter of Donald Trump and will not be voting for him unless he becomes a Christian as I do not vote for people to lead who are not lead of God.
Now that being said those are the accusations. If he has broken the law he should be treated like any other law breaker. If he has not broken the law and you do not like his foundation, guess what? Don't give any money to it and don't worry about it because it would not be anyone's business except those who give.
However I feel must be weighed against the alternative which is the bottom line and has to do directly do with motive for you asking me to make a judgment against him. Therefore, I must address your motive first...that is simply the reasonable and rational thing to do when someone asks you to make a character judgment, that if being honest, is concerning a matter of preference.