Page 6 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

09 Sep 2020, 7:27 pm

Does running iffy charities really morally compensate for running casinos?

The guy straight up takes other people's money for a living. Card games are not an industry.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Sep 2020, 7:29 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/12/23/best-stories-of-the-decade-how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#579a35624779

(Sigh) Trump did, did, did.

Originally published June 6, 2017.

Fact checks in 2019 (both the one you supplied, and the one I had previously linked) disproved the claim...

This "obstinate dedication to a nonexistent image of Trump" which you hold must be deeply embedded if you have to use discredited claims to support it...


:wall: If you want to believe and defend a man who isn't even your country's leader, then go ahead. Trump and his litter have not been able to operate a charity in New York since, and that is indisputable. The man had cheated workers, contractors, and partners to enrich himself. That is the Donald Trump of reality. The humble man who loves children and puppies, upright businessman, and man of faith and probable next messiah is a figment of his voters collective fevered imagination.


And not once have I argued about any of that: All I have asked is for evidence that he "stole from a kids cancer charity", which you had been repeatedly claiming, but were unable to provide any evidence to support.

The fact that you cannot produce any evidence of this would indicate that the claim is indeed false, which was all I was trying to confirm one way or another.

I have no problem with people "attacking" him for valid reasons: It's when they have to resort to lies\misrepresentation\inuendo in order to do so that I find offensive - If he is as bad as people make him out to be, why are the lies, etc. necessary?

Besides, enough lies\misrepresentations\anonymous, unsubstantiated claims ("fine people" hoax, "stealing from kids charity", calling soldiers who died in wars "losers" or "suckers" claim, etc.) and when an actual problem comes to light no-one will believe it as a result of the lies\misrepresentations\unsubstantiated claims, and it may push people to take his side as a result of all the past lies about him...


Trump did steal from his own cancer charity.


I notice you removed the "kids" part of this...Do you have anything to support THIS claim? After the difficulty in getting you to realize your claims about his stealing from a "kids cancer charity" were false (or, in common terms, lies), seeing a similar claim being made without evidence does give rise to the possibility it may hold an equal lack of factual basis\truth...


Not at all. I assumed everyone knew by now which cancer charity that Trump had stolen from. And with my dying breath, I will proclaim: TRUMP STOLE FROM A CHILDREN'S CANCER CHARITY!! !


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Sep 2020, 9:24 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/12/23/best-stories-of-the-decade-how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#579a35624779

(Sigh) Trump did, did, did.

Originally published June 6, 2017.

Fact checks in 2019 (both the one you supplied, and the one I had previously linked) disproved the claim...

This "obstinate dedication to a nonexistent image of Trump" which you hold must be deeply embedded if you have to use discredited claims to support it...


:wall: If you want to believe and defend a man who isn't even your country's leader, then go ahead. Trump and his litter have not been able to operate a charity in New York since, and that is indisputable. The man had cheated workers, contractors, and partners to enrich himself. That is the Donald Trump of reality. The humble man who loves children and puppies, upright businessman, and man of faith and probable next messiah is a figment of his voters collective fevered imagination.


And not once have I argued about any of that: All I have asked is for evidence that he "stole from a kids cancer charity", which you had been repeatedly claiming, but were unable to provide any evidence to support.

The fact that you cannot produce any evidence of this would indicate that the claim is indeed false, which was all I was trying to confirm one way or another.

I have no problem with people "attacking" him for valid reasons: It's when they have to resort to lies\misrepresentation\inuendo in order to do so that I find offensive - If he is as bad as people make him out to be, why are the lies, etc. necessary?

Besides, enough lies\misrepresentations\anonymous, unsubstantiated claims ("fine people" hoax, "stealing from kids charity", calling soldiers who died in wars "losers" or "suckers" claim, etc.) and when an actual problem comes to light no-one will believe it as a result of the lies\misrepresentations\unsubstantiated claims, and it may push people to take his side as a result of all the past lies about him...


Trump did steal from his own cancer charity.


I notice you removed the "kids" part of this...Do you have anything to support THIS claim? After the difficulty in getting you to realize your claims about his stealing from a "kids cancer charity" were false (or, in common terms, lies), seeing a similar claim being made without evidence does give rise to the possibility it may hold an equal lack of factual basis\truth...


Not at all. I assumed everyone knew by now which cancer charity that Trump had stolen from. And with my dying breath, I will proclaim: TRUMP STOLE FROM A CHILDREN'S CANCER CHARITY!! !


Being that we have already confirmed (above) that he did not, in fact, steal from a "kids charity cancer", including through evidence you supplied, it would be objectively reasonable to assume your determination to continue with these false claims also reflects on the level of truth behind any other claims made against this person by yourself. Of course, I'd be happy to revise this opinion should factual evidence to support the claims be produced...Anonymous sources\claims, however, are of no evidentary value.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Sep 2020, 9:53 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/12/23/best-stories-of-the-decade-how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#579a35624779

(Sigh) Trump did, did, did.

Originally published June 6, 2017.

Fact checks in 2019 (both the one you supplied, and the one I had previously linked) disproved the claim...

This "obstinate dedication to a nonexistent image of Trump" which you hold must be deeply embedded if you have to use discredited claims to support it...


:wall: If you want to believe and defend a man who isn't even your country's leader, then go ahead. Trump and his litter have not been able to operate a charity in New York since, and that is indisputable. The man had cheated workers, contractors, and partners to enrich himself. That is the Donald Trump of reality. The humble man who loves children and puppies, upright businessman, and man of faith and probable next messiah is a figment of his voters collective fevered imagination.


And not once have I argued about any of that: All I have asked is for evidence that he "stole from a kids cancer charity", which you had been repeatedly claiming, but were unable to provide any evidence to support.

The fact that you cannot produce any evidence of this would indicate that the claim is indeed false, which was all I was trying to confirm one way or another.

I have no problem with people "attacking" him for valid reasons: It's when they have to resort to lies\misrepresentation\inuendo in order to do so that I find offensive - If he is as bad as people make him out to be, why are the lies, etc. necessary?

Besides, enough lies\misrepresentations\anonymous, unsubstantiated claims ("fine people" hoax, "stealing from kids charity", calling soldiers who died in wars "losers" or "suckers" claim, etc.) and when an actual problem comes to light no-one will believe it as a result of the lies\misrepresentations\unsubstantiated claims, and it may push people to take his side as a result of all the past lies about him...


Trump did steal from his own cancer charity.


I notice you removed the "kids" part of this...Do you have anything to support THIS claim? After the difficulty in getting you to realize your claims about his stealing from a "kids cancer charity" were false (or, in common terms, lies), seeing a similar claim being made without evidence does give rise to the possibility it may hold an equal lack of factual basis\truth...


Not at all. I assumed everyone knew by now which cancer charity that Trump had stolen from. And with my dying breath, I will proclaim: TRUMP STOLE FROM A CHILDREN'S CANCER CHARITY!! !


Being that we have already confirmed (above) that he did not, in fact, steal from a "kids charity cancer", including through evidence you supplied, it would be objectively reasonable to assume your determination to continue with these false claims also reflects on the level of truth behind any other claims made against this person by yourself. Of course, I'd be happy to revise this opinion should factual evidence to support the claims be produced...Anonymous sources\claims, however, are of no evidentary value.


The fact that Trump and his litter are now forbidden to conduct any further charities in New York says different. Show me evidence that the Trump crime family can operate a charity in New York state.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Feyokien
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,303
Location: The Northern Waste

09 Sep 2020, 9:59 pm

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/

Quote:
Were Trump family members banned from running charities in New York?

In June 2018, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood sued the president, his son Eric and daughter, Ivanka, along with the Donald J. Trump Foundation charity. Underwood wrote that:

“For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law.”

As a result, Underwood asked the New York State Supreme Court to “dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities.”

Specifically, the attorney general asked the court to bar the president from running any New York-based charities for 10 years, and the other directors for one year.

In December 2018, the attorney general and the defendants reached an agreement to dissolve the Trump Foundation and distribute its assets to a list of agreed charities. However, that agreement did not include Underwood’s request that President Trump, along with Eric and Ivanka, be barred from operating a New York-based non-profit organization in the future, for varying periods of time.

In January 2019, Letitia James took over as New York attorney general and continued the state’s case against the Trumps. On Nov. 7, the state’s Supreme Court published a final resolution of the case, one which did not bar either President Trump or his children Eric and Ivanka, from running charities in the state of New York.

However, President Trump was forced to agree to certain stipulations involving governance, leadership structure and record-keeping, in the event that he wishes to become a non-profit director or board member within the state, in future. As part of the final settlement, Eric and Ivanka Trump were required to undergo (and have already undergone) “an in-person, interactive board training session pertaining to charitable organizations and the fiduciary responsibilities of those organizations’ directors and officers.”

The final resolution of the case, published on Nov. 7, made it clear that the New York Supreme Court had not barred members of the Trump family from operating or running charities within the state, and so this element of the claim contained in Amato’s viral tweet was false. However, it should be emphasized that at the time Amato posted his tweet (Oct. 5), that final resolution had not yet been published, and it was released only after this fact check was published.

When Amato made his claims, a realistic possibility still existed that the court might indeed accept the Attorney General’s request to bar the family members outright from running charities in the state, for various time periods. On that basis, we originally issued a rating of “Mostly False.” However, the case was subsequently resolved without those outright bans being implemented, and therefore we have change the rating to “False.”



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Sep 2020, 10:24 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/12/23/best-stories-of-the-decade-how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#579a35624779

(Sigh) Trump did, did, did.

Originally published June 6, 2017.

Fact checks in 2019 (both the one you supplied, and the one I had previously linked) disproved the claim...

This "obstinate dedication to a nonexistent image of Trump" which you hold must be deeply embedded if you have to use discredited claims to support it...


:wall: If you want to believe and defend a man who isn't even your country's leader, then go ahead. Trump and his litter have not been able to operate a charity in New York since, and that is indisputable. The man had cheated workers, contractors, and partners to enrich himself. That is the Donald Trump of reality. The humble man who loves children and puppies, upright businessman, and man of faith and probable next messiah is a figment of his voters collective fevered imagination.


And not once have I argued about any of that: All I have asked is for evidence that he "stole from a kids cancer charity", which you had been repeatedly claiming, but were unable to provide any evidence to support.

The fact that you cannot produce any evidence of this would indicate that the claim is indeed false, which was all I was trying to confirm one way or another.

I have no problem with people "attacking" him for valid reasons: It's when they have to resort to lies\misrepresentation\inuendo in order to do so that I find offensive - If he is as bad as people make him out to be, why are the lies, etc. necessary?

Besides, enough lies\misrepresentations\anonymous, unsubstantiated claims ("fine people" hoax, "stealing from kids charity", calling soldiers who died in wars "losers" or "suckers" claim, etc.) and when an actual problem comes to light no-one will believe it as a result of the lies\misrepresentations\unsubstantiated claims, and it may push people to take his side as a result of all the past lies about him...


Trump did steal from his own cancer charity.


I notice you removed the "kids" part of this...Do you have anything to support THIS claim? After the difficulty in getting you to realize your claims about his stealing from a "kids cancer charity" were false (or, in common terms, lies), seeing a similar claim being made without evidence does give rise to the possibility it may hold an equal lack of factual basis\truth...


Not at all. I assumed everyone knew by now which cancer charity that Trump had stolen from. And with my dying breath, I will proclaim: TRUMP STOLE FROM A CHILDREN'S CANCER CHARITY!! !


Being that we have already confirmed (above) that he did not, in fact, steal from a "kids charity cancer", including through evidence you supplied, it would be objectively reasonable to assume your determination to continue with these false claims also reflects on the level of truth behind any other claims made against this person by yourself. Of course, I'd be happy to revise this opinion should factual evidence to support the claims be produced...Anonymous sources\claims, however, are of no evidentary value.


The fact that Trump and his litter are now forbidden to conduct any further charities in New York says different. Show me evidence that the Trump crime family can operate a charity in New York state.


As expected...
Quote:
The final resolution of the case, published on Nov. 7, made it clear that the New York Supreme Court had not barred members of the Trump family from operating or running charities within the state

source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/

Reliance on discredited claims, particularly where the evidence showing their falsity is readily available, is likely to lead to legitimate claims being ignored (boy who cried wolf)...If your intention is to have people dislike Mr Trump, relying on falsehoods to convince them is likely to instead turn people towards him in sympathy. If you make claims with facts to support them, you will have much better luck with your endeavours in the long run.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Sep 2020, 10:57 pm

I admittedly was depending on older information. That said, Trump and his litter were obviously up to no good in that various Trump charities were dissolved. Still doesn't say much for the Trumps' honesty.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Sep 2020, 11:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I admittedly was depending on older information. That said, Trump and his litter were obviously up to no good in that they have to take training and provide records to prove that they're on the up and up.


And that is a legitimate reason for someone to dislike them. It's when additional details that aren't accurate are used that it becomes a potential problem.

It would be interesting to see the actual documents\judgement related to the case, to see "who did what" with regards to what happened in the charity(s)...Sometimes the accidental use of an incorrect word ("proceeds" rather than "profits" to go to a certain entity\target, for example) can be enough to cause issues, after all -Not saying this happened, not having the records to see, just indicating that it could be a factor in part.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Sep 2020, 11:40 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I admittedly was depending on older information. That said, Trump and his litter were obviously up to no good in that they have to take training and provide records to prove that they're on the up and up.


And that is a legitimate reason for someone to dislike them. It's when additional details that aren't accurate are used that it becomes a potential problem.

It would be interesting to see the actual documents\judgement related to the case, to see "who did what" with regards to what happened in the charity(s)...Sometimes the accidental use of an incorrect word ("proceeds" rather than "profits" to go to a certain entity\target, for example) can be enough to cause issues, after all -Not saying this happened, not having the records to see, just indicating that it could be a factor in part.


Considering the Trumps morality, or lack of it, I think it's fair to assume the worst. Poor Baron Trump will have to grow up with that weight around his neck. I feel sorry for the kid.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


B19
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

10 Sep 2020, 12:06 am

Smear campaigns like this one have the hallmarks of being both ugly and desperate innuendo laced with mischievous intent:

https://arcdigital.media/revealed-new-d ... 8567ed4fff

Is there no bottom?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Sep 2020, 12:10 am

B19 wrote:
Smear campaigns like this one have the hallmarks of being both ugly and desperate innuendo laced with mischievous intent:

https://arcdigital.media/revealed-new-d ... 8567ed4fff

Is there no bottom?


Unfortunately, far too many people believe the smears against Hunter Biden, and will in their flawed logic assume it reflects on his father.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Feyokien
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,303
Location: The Northern Waste

10 Sep 2020, 12:22 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
B19 wrote:
Smear campaigns like this one have the hallmarks of being both ugly and desperate innuendo laced with mischievous intent:

https://arcdigital.media/revealed-new-d ... 8567ed4fff

Is there no bottom?


Unfortunately, far too many people believe the smears against Hunter Biden, and will in their flawed logic assume it reflects on his father.


When I was referring to something being true earlier in the thread, I was only referring to the claim the Hunter had a child with some women in Arkansas. Even CNN reported on it.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/hunter-biden-paternity-case-child-support/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-agrees-pay-child-support-mother-of-lovechild-roberts-2020-1

Hunter and Joe aren't the same person so it doesn't really factor into my opinion of Joe.



B19
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

10 Sep 2020, 12:28 am

Different ethics prevail in New Zealand political life. Smears can be lobbed at politicians but never their families and children - it's considered way beyond the pale, and the convention is adhered to. The USA certainly looks like an ugly place in terms of ethics in these turbulent times.



Romofan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2020
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 579
Location: Carcosa, Texas

10 Sep 2020, 12:43 am

If personal smears against politicians are bad, and Donald Trump is a politician, where have the moderators been for the last year?


_________________
"We see the extent to which our pursuit of pleasure has been limited in large part by a vocabulary foisted upon us"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Sep 2020, 1:00 am

Feyokien wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
B19 wrote:
Smear campaigns like this one have the hallmarks of being both ugly and desperate innuendo laced with mischievous intent:

https://arcdigital.media/revealed-new-d ... 8567ed4fff

Is there no bottom?


Unfortunately, far too many people believe the smears against Hunter Biden, and will in their flawed logic assume it reflects on his father.


When I was referring to something being true earlier in the thread, I was only referring to the claim the Hunter had a child with some women in Arkansas. Even CNN reported on it.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/hunter-biden-paternity-case-child-support/index.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-agrees-pay-child-support-mother-of-lovechild-roberts-2020-1

Hunter and Joe aren't the same person so it doesn't really factor into my opinion of Joe.


Trust me, I wasn't referring to you, if my last post was at all troubling for you.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,302
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Sep 2020, 1:03 am

Romofan wrote:
If personal smears against politicians are bad, and Donald Trump is a politician, where have the moderators been for the last year?


Politicians expect to get smeared (except for one as thin skinned as Trump), though those making the smears should be prepared to throw down if challenged. It's young children who should not be pulled into it, whether it's Baron Trump, or Chelsea Clinton years ago (which that closet case, Rush Limbaugh, regularly did).


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer