Originally posted by Tony Kania: Pot meet kettle. No "talk about ad hominem", just facts.
Do liberals even think before they talk?
I do not have to be a nice guy in this situation. Carry on...
I'm not a liberal. I'm sure you desperately want to place me in some box/label so you can dismiss me, but you are incorrect.
Second, he brought up something 15 years ago which has exactly jack-**** to do with this thread but only to smear me. That's the definition of ad-hominem. You want to make a thread discussing that situation, I'd be glad to participate. I apologized for my actions back then, was wrong, owned up to them, and will STILL apologize for them.
I'm not a liberal. I'm sure you desperately want to place me in some box/label so you can dismiss me, but you are incorrect.
Second, he brought up something 15 years ago which has exactly jack-**** to do with this thread but only to smear me. That's the definition of ad-hominem. You want to make a thread discussing that situation, I'd be glad to participate. I apologized for my actions back then, was wrong, owned up to them, and will STILL apologize for them.
"Desperately"? You believe me to be desperate? Hmm?
I am not worried about your past. Please do not be angry at me for your past indiscretions. I will not play nice if your past defines our future.
Still doesn't change the fact he was caught using the charity as a piggy bank.
Ok bubba, ... from your link ...
quote
He added that over the past decade, the foundation had distributed about $19 million, including $8.25 million of Trump’s personal money, to over 700 charitable organizations.
Your President Trump donated $8.25 million then BORROWED ... your link ...
quote
The lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation also seeks to recoup $2.8 million and ban Trump and his three eldest children from leadership roles in any other New York charity.
I'm not a liberal. I'm sure you desperately want to place me in some box/label so you can dismiss me, but you are incorrect.
Second, he brought up something 15 years ago which has exactly jack-**** to do with this thread but only to smear me. That's the definition of ad-hominem. You want to make a thread discussing that situation, I'd be glad to participate. I apologized for my actions back then, was wrong, owned up to them, and will STILL apologize for them.
[This message has been edited by Jake_Dragon (edited 01-13-2020).]
Your president trump donated $8.25MM then BORROWED. . .
$100 to Saint Judes right now if you can point out in the article where it states he "borrowed" the money.
I'll post the article in it's entirety for you:
quote
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s namesake charitable foundation has agreed to dissolve under court supervision, partially resolving a New York state lawsuit claiming he misused it to advance his 2016 presidential campaign and his businesses, the state attorney general said on Tuesday.
The lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation also seeks to recoup $2.8 million and ban Trump and his three eldest children from leadership roles in any other New York charity.
The agreement, which must be approved by a New York state judge, would give state Attorney General Barbara Underwood the power to vet the charities that receive the foundation’s remaining assets.
Underwood said in a statement that the foundation had served as “little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests,” and called the agreement “an important victory for the rule of law.”
Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trumps, responded in a statement that the lawsuit had delayed the foundation’s plan to dissolve after Trump won the U.S. presidential election in November 2016.
He added that over the past decade, the foundation had distributed about $19 million, including $8.25 million of Trump’s personal money, to over 700 charitable organizations.
Trump, a Republican, has previously said on Twitter that Underwood’s lawsuit was a concoction by “sleazy New York Democrats.” In their motion to dismiss the case, the Trumps said it reflected Underwood’s “pervasive bias” against them.
The new agreement came less than a month after Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan rejected the motion to dismiss.
The motion had argued that the U.S. Constitution immunized Trump from Underwood’s claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, improper self-dealing, and misuse of assets belonging to the Foundation.
Underwood sued Trump and his adult children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka on June 14, after a 21-month probe that she said uncovered “extensive unlawful political coordination” between the foundation and Trump’s campaign.
Underwood alleged, among other things, that Trump wrongly ceded control to his campaign of about $2.8 million donated to the foundation in a 2016 Iowa fundraiser for military veterans. Other challenged expenses included $100,000 to settle a dispute involving Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and $10,000 for a portrait of Trump that was later hung at one of his golf clubs.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
What a scoundrel your President is.
First, -our- president. I'm guessing you said -your- as some sort of jab; swing and a miss, doesn't bother me. But alas, this is where we are. When Trump is caught doing something illegal, it's only an issue because "those demoncrat 'libruls'!" . I simply hold our president to the same standards regardless of political affiliation. If Obama had done this, you would have gone apocalyptic. Trump does it and you can't even bat an eye. The entire problem is that what he did was illegal. This is why he settled. Trump was the same guy who said he doesn't settle. . . yet settled this. . .I wonder why that is? /sarcasm.
Second, you know the Clintons have donated $14MM of their personal money to their foundation, right? And that their foundation has donated over $2B? So is it the dollar amount that's the issue? If so, why don't you lend the same position to the Clintons?
If Trump is worth $10+Billion as he claims, $8MM should be pocket change, especially considering he could have (and most likely) used those donations as a tax writeoff.
Also, are we going to continue to gloss over the fact that you said the Clinton Foundation isn't a charity even though it is?
After all this is said and done, this is a complete side track. The underlying fact is that Huber has essentially closed the investigation and people that are so wedded to the idea of there -has- to be something, continue to yell at the sky in anger. Investigation after investigation have turned up fruitless. At some point you should do some self introspect and realize that these may be more politically charged than in reality. How many times do you need to not have things go the way you want to realize that you may be wrong? But at this point, be my guest. Continue wasting political capital over nothing burgers and yelling at the sky when they don't turn out the way you want.
And to be clear, if the Clintons do get charged due to more information, I will -gladly- change my position. :thumbs:
Cheers,
quote
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
You have failed to address a single one of my posts, only attack and (attempt) to antagonize. F in debate and subject material. Solid C in trolling.
In several places, the docs mention dates and amounts where funds were reimbursed, with interest. Some may disagree, but that sounds like every loan I ever took out. I would like to suggest that anyone who actually cares, take the time to read, understand and draw their own conclusions.
As an example, $10,000 was donated for the infamous portrait which briefly hung in the hotel and then was returned to the charity. That is far different than what has been implied in many "news" reports.
There seems to be quite a bit of dispute regarding the amount of donations and their distribution from the January 2016 fundraiser. I will not attempt to sort out that mess or rely on any single source claiming to have the facts.
I my opinion, there was no nefarious intent and one mistake by a clerk who worked for the Trump foundation. If there were criminal activity, it would have been discovered in the three years of intense investigation that has surrounded the Trump administration.
In several places, the docs mention dates and amounts where funds were reimbursed, with interest. Some may disagree, but that sounds like every loan I ever took out. I would like to suggest that anyone who actually cares, take the time to read, understand and draw their own conclusions.
As an example, $10,000 was donated for the infamous portrait which briefly hung in the hotel and then was returned to the charity. That is far different than what has been implied in many "news" reports.
There seems to be quite a bit of dispute regarding the amount of donations and their distribution from the January 2016 fundraiser. I will not attempt to sort out that mess or rely on any single source claiming to have the facts.
I my opinion, there was no nefarious intent and one mistake by a clerk who worked for the Trump foundation. If there were criminal activity, it would have been discovered in the three years of intense investigation that has surrounded the Trump administration.
Interesting. Trump used the charity to pay his legal bill's and seemed to only reimburse the charity after the investigation started. If I could get a 10yr $100k personal loan at < 1.75% APR where the balance is only due at the end, I would take out as many as I could.
The other issue is that Trump used the charity for political purposes which is also prohibited. (Also listed in that link)
And to add, that's exactly why I dislike clinton. She'll take a position and argue for said position, but when she gets called out on it, she denies she never 'explicitly' stated she supported said thing.
Interesting. Trump used the charity to pay his legal bill's and seemed to only reimburse the charity after the investigation started. If I could get a 10yr $100k personal loan at < 1.75% APR where the balance is only due at the end, I would take out as many as I could.
The legal bill in question consisted of a donation to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides lodging for families of vets who are hospitalized. The Fisher House provided the following statement:
quote
Fisher House’s Childress said her foundation, which has built houses all over the U.S. and as far away as German and England, had no way to know if the Trump donation presented an ethical or legal problem. “We received a check from the Trump Foundation and we’re grateful for that, as we are from any foundations,” she said.
quote
The other issue is that Trump used the charity for political purposes which is also prohibited. (Also listed in that link)
The January 2016 Fundraiser is debatable, the "Justice for All" donation was an error by a clerk.
The legal bill in question consisted of a donation to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides lodging for families of vets who are hospitalized.
To provide a little more detail, the city fined Trump for flying an American flag over his hotel. Trump sued the city and in a mediated settlement, the court ordered him to pay $100,000 to the Fisher House. Trump borrowed money from the Trump Foundation to pay Fisher House, then paid back the Trump foundation with his own money.
Does anyone really think that a man with Trump's money would risk legal jeopardy for $100k? That's like what? $100 to you and me?
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-13-2020).]
And to add, that's exactly why I dislike clinton. She'll take a position and argue for said position, but when she gets called out on it, she denies she never 'explicitly' stated she supported said thing.
Originally posted by RandomTask: $100 to Saint Judes right now if you can point out in the article where it states he "borrowed" the money.
Sheesh, we (the wife and I) donate to them already, and the Schriners hospital.
No, action by partisan hacks did not take action because he borrowed the money. If he gave me 8 million to start a charity foundation, and I could pay staffing, and still charitably donate 19 million, he would not need a gun to want two million back. For whatever reason.
Who did those partisan hacks hurt ? I can think of 19 million.
I will be back after the second half of the college football championship. It looks like the Tigers will win, just as I predicted, .
Wow its nice to see all of you have a discussion/debate without acting like total pricks to one another..
Oh wait....
Nevermind.....
I wish I had time to play video games.
If this is too heavy for you, we can always do things the democratic way and riot, loot, and steal. Or, how about we just petition Cliff for a Kids Table so that those with hurt feelings can play also and get their participation awards.
I build custom cry closets...
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 01-14-2020).]
English, the language that we use to communicate clearly to others our ideas and opinions. English please.
Enjoy your day...
Tony, If you can't read what I wrote and understand it, I can't help you. but what does the liberal play book say to do, when your belittling tactic doesn't work. I'm sure you have the liberal play book memorized.
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 01-16-2020).]
.
