How Many Of You Here Support Trump?

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

I was wrong about the FBI exceeding their jurisdiction. I had just come back from work after being awake for 16 hours, with 3 hours sleep prior. ******ed statement.

 

[JGlass]

I was wrong about the FBI exceeding their jurisdiction. I had just come back from work after being awake for 16 hours, with 3 hours sleep prior. ******ed statement.

What's your excuse for the rest of the thread?

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

What, pointing out that Hillary has a guilty conscience? I do follow innocent until proven guilty, but the fact that Hillary deleted 30000+ "personal" state department e-mails before turning them over to the government when requested by a federal judge is difficult to defend against.

There's no cold hard truth to it, but if she had done nothing wrong, she would disclose these e-mails to the FBI.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

I'm still waiting for a response to the last time I bothered talking to you, but whatever. Tasty is a busy man and I spent 30 minutes today finding out how many custard doughnuts I could eat in a single sitting.

Your comment about the FBI exceeding their own jurisdiction was so nonsensical that I legitimately don't understand what you're on about, and since you haven't explained it elsewhere in the thread, I'll let you better explain what you were trying to say before I make any attempt at correction.

As for your original post however;



What does "She then positioned that funding into her presidential campaign" even mean? You think she's taking money out of the Clinton Foundation? Because she's not, and even the Republican conspiracy nutjobs aren't claiming otherwise.

If the Clinton Foundation were trying to ferry money into Hillary's campaign then it would be operating as a 501(c)(4) charitable organization (which it isn't). This is the same status that "charitable" groups like the NRA and Planned Parenthood operate under.

The NRA has contributed $800,000 this election cycle. Planned Parenthood has contributed something like $600,000. You know how I know this? Because political contributions like this are open information under US Campaign Finance Laws. As a charitable organisation, the Clinton Foundation does not have to disclose where it's money comes from unless they so choose, or law enforcement asks (both of which have happened) but they do have to show where that money goes - and according to the American Institute for Philanthropy, about 90% of it goes on direct philanthropy.

So for your implications that it's somehow not a real charity; the fuck are you on about?

I wrote something up about the cocaine example you provided, which basically said, yes it was a bad thing, but not something we could immediately point at and say racist. More likely is the fact that we didn't know enough about the difference between powdered and crack at the time. While not a completely accurate comparison, it's similar to the MMR autism hoax in the 90's; people didn't know about autism at the time to prove Wakefield wrong until after the negative repercussions had taken effect.

Anyway, about my OP, since I was wrong about the jurisdiction thing (seriously, no idea what I was thinking).

The Foundation has collected, I believe, about 2 billion dollars since inception, and pulls in $100M+ per year. All of this is being done under the designation of it being "a charity". But apparently they are paying out less than 15% of the gross revenue in actual benefits, with over 60% being listed as "other expenses". Meanwhile they are keeping people on staff, having administrative support, doing polling on issues, locating and identifying "like-minded Americans", shuttling the Clintons themselves around the world, and actually paying the Clinton's salaries -- all tax free. The Foundation has been a full-time marketing mechanism, and non-stop proto-campaign for the Clintons for years.

And the Clinton's themselves - in their personal, individual tax situations - have amassed tens of millions personally. And the Clintons are both drawing salaries and bonuses from the Foundation; but also making donations to the Foundation, to reduce their personal taxes.

I'm not saying that the Clinton Foundation is not a real charity, I'm happy for the actual contributions they make (I read an article about them contributing to Haiti recently). But having recently understood how the charity is run, I can't help but feel disgusted about it. If I were an American citizen and were to vote tomorrow, I would probably vote Hillary simply because Democrat > Republican. Trump is a populist and his core values are not in line with my own on many things. But Hillary's corruption, which I originally just wrote off as a baseless thing, actually has some solid foundation to it.

 

[The Doctor]

I'm still waiting for a response to the last time I bothered talking to you, but whatever. Tasty is a busy man and I spent 30 minutes today finding out how many custard doughnuts I could eat in a single sitting.

How many was it?

 

[Gelgarin]

I wrote something up about the cocaine example you provided, which basically said, yes it was a bad thing, but not something we could immediately point at and say racist. More likely is the fact that we didn't know enough about the difference between powdered and crack at the time.

We knew exactly what the difference between crack and power was. It was baking soda. We knew what the difference was when the law was passed, and we've known what the difference was every time the law has been challenged, renewed and modified. The sentencing disparity exists to this day, in defiance of every expert, and was debated on the house floor as recently as 2014. Black men still get longer sentences than white men for carrying the same drug.

As I understand it, your argument has been that racism is not a major issue, or at the very least is being massively overstated by the political left. But it's becoming increasingly apparent that you believe that because, when confronted with evidence of racism, you will determinedly bury your head in the sand until it goes away, then pretend you never saw it.

The Foundation has collected, I believe, about 2 billion dollars since inception, and pulls in $100M+ per year. All of this is being done under the designation of it being "a charity". But apparently they are paying out less than 15% of the gross revenue in actual benefits, with over 60% being listed as "other expenses".

How about, instead of cribbing some nonsense from a third party, you take a look at the Clinton Foundation's 990 instead. I'll link it for you here.

Page 10 is the one you want, where you will see that "Other Expense" accounts for less than 4% of the Clinton Foundation's expenditure. Not 60% as you just claimed. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk about it.

As I pointed out earlier and you ignored for no reason, the Independent Philanthropy Watchdog went extensively over the Clinton Foundation's financials and found that 89% of the foundation's assets were spent on charitable work.

And the Clintons are both drawing salaries and bonuses from the Foundation; but also making donations to the Foundation, to reduce their personal taxes.

Oh for fuck sake. Right, I'm sick of this now. Please find me some evidence of how much salary Hilary is drawing from the Clinton foundation to avoid tax. Then explain to me why, as of her publicly released tax returns she appears to have paid more tax than basically everyone else in her income bracket. With all of her corruption and swindling and burying chests of doubloons under the Eisenhower Putting Green, she still paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.7% last year.

When you start inventing shit to justify your beliefs, you become everything that is wrong with political discourse. No interest in facts, or evidence, or changing your opinion. You'll concede to me on every single point of this debate, then you'll made up some new reasons to carry on believing what you already believe.

How many was it?

Five. I got to four and then thought "this is stupid". There was a brief rally around the 25 minute mark, but it was too little, too late.

 

[Tastycles]

She's in a situation where if they could prove she was indictable, the FBI would be breaking their jurisdiction. Charity funds are private after all.

This is utter nonsense.

No it isn't. Did you read my initial post about the Clinton Foundation?

I was wrong about the FBI exceeding their jurisdiction. I had just come back from work after being awake for 16 hours, with 3 hours sleep prior. ******ed statement.

Well I guess my work here is done.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Clinton is for abortion, higher taxes, Obamacare, Common Core, gun control, and decriminalizing drug use. Don't forget her Benghazi and Email scandals.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Clinton is for abortion, higher taxes, Obamacare, Common Core, gun control, and decriminalizing drug use. Don't forget her Benghazi and Email scandals.

I really hope when you get old enough that you don't vote.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

I really hope when you get old enough that you don't vote.

Who are you going to vote for and why?

 

[JGlass]

Clinton is for abortion, higher taxes, Obamacare, Common Core, gun control, and decriminalizing drug use.

Yeah, all of that sounds pretty good.

Especially because her tax plan is increasing taxes on the super rich and continuing to cut them or everyone else.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

We knew exactly what the difference between crack and power was. It was baking soda. We knew what the difference was when the law was passed, and we've known what the difference was every time the law has been challenged, renewed and modified. The sentencing disparity exists to this day, in defiance of every expert, and was debated on the house floor as recently as 2014. Black men still get longer sentences than white men for carrying the same drug.

The US Sentencing Commission did extensive research into the effects of both forms of cocaine after the 1986 act (I assume this was the one you were originally referencing). And they concluded that the difference in effects were hyperbolized, and that the disparity was unwarranted.

So yes, it's bullshit that this disparity is still existent to a degree, but I think that instead of institutionalised racism, it's more a case that the fact that African-Americans are given harsher sentences is a by-product of incompetency. You must judge by intent, these people are not actively plotting against African-Americans, more so African-Americans are caught within the crossfire of another issue entirely. This is not a problem to do with racism, it's a problem to do with the rejection of facts, which is a different beast.

As I understand it, your argument has been that racism is not a major issue, or at the very least is being massively overstated by the political left. But it's becoming increasingly apparent that you believe that because, when confronted with evidence of racism, you will determinedly bury your head in the sand until it goes away, then pretend you never saw it.

As I said earlier, I operate on an innocent until proven guilty policy. You cannot immediately declare something as racist just because there is a problem that COULD be racist in nature that is present. You need to look into it further. Racism is a terrible thing, but is being over-stated in today's climate, primarily due to our yesterday's misdeeds. If there is another explanation however, it is important to assess it and see if it has more basis than just pointing a finger and saying it's racist (which it usually does, but people do use mental gymnastics to justify actual racism to be fair, so there is a valid point to make there).

After doing some MORE research into these corruption allegations, I'm extremely confused about the entire thing. Both parties, which are Hillary and the people accusing her are providing extremely inconsistent data for justifying their positions, and it's very hard to identify what is truth and what isn't. I will say that the 88-89 percent claim is bullshit though: http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

@BSE: You say that as if those things are bad things. (hint: Most of them aren't)

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Clinton is for abortion, higher taxes, Obamacare, Common Core, gun control, and decriminalizing drug use. Don't forget her Benghazi and Email scandals.

All fantastic reasons to vote for her. The other two are bullshit created by people who know idiots will fall in line.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

I love it when people assume Benghazi was an EVIL plot by Hillary, and not just a simple mistake that we all make as human beings.

 

[Gelgarin]

Do you even read the links you post?

The Clinton Foundation only spent 10% of its income on Charitable Grants because the Clinton Foundation IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING CHARITABLE GRANTS. Charitable Grants means giving the money away to other organisations. The Clinton Foundation does its charity work in house. That website is either written by an idiot, or is willfully trying to mislead people who don't know how charities work.

How many times must I repeat; the independent and international body whose entire function is to assess charities looked at the question and concluded that the number was about 89%. Gove was clearly correct when he said that people were tired of listening to experts.

I'll note that you've totally glossed over your previous bullshit about Clinton dodging tax, funneling money from her charity into her campaign and drawing salary away from her charitable pursuits. Are you retracting those lies too?

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Do you even read the links you post?

The Clinton Foundation only spent 10% of its income on Charitable Grants because the Clinton Foundation IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING CHARITABLE GRANTS. Charitable Grants means giving the money away to other organisations. The Clinton Foundation does its charity work in house. That website is either written by an idiot, or is willfully trying to mislead people who don't know how charities work.

How many times must I repeat; the independent and international body whose entire function is to assess charities looked at the question and concluded that the number was about 89%. Gove was clearly correct when he said that people were tired of listening to experts.

You're right.

I'll note that you've totally glossed over your previous bullshit about Clinton dodging tax, funneling money from her charity into her campaign and drawing salary away from her charitable pursuits. Are you retracting those lies too?

Not so much retracting as I am leaving a question mark on them. I mean, your arguments and my subsequent research into them have proved that a lot of the argument is inconsistent. That doesn't mean that the initial claim is completely invalid however.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Are you seriously saying this:

I operate on an innocent until proven guilty policy.

....and then making a judgement based on this:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27...0-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

....dandy of a source for judgement? Couldn't you have at least gone as far as making the contradiction in separate threads or at least separate posts?

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Well I guess my work here is done.

I love it when people assume Benghazi was an EVIL plot by Hillary, and not just a simple mistake that we all make as human beings.

It's not.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Let me get this straight. You guys want unborn babies to be killed. You want to give even more money to the government for them to waste. You want a healthcare program, which has cost millions of Americans their insurance. You want an education program, which is extremely difficult and teaches a bunch of useless information. You want them to take away our guns so we have no protection. Dangerous criminals are going to get them anyway. You want the government to decriminalize drug use, which has destroyed numerous peoples' lives. Do you really want all of this?

You also disregard her email situation as if it's nothing. It is. It's a huge deal. She sent out classified information on a private server. This is a risk to national security, as an enemy could have easily hacked that server. Also do you not find it a little suspicious that she deleted 30,000+ emails before she turned it over to the FBI. What about the fact that she lied about her sending classified information out? She said she didn't, but she clearly did.

What about Benghazi? Maybe it was a mistake, but how do you explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8

It's Hillary Clinton, so of course it doesn't matter.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

 

[Барбоса]

Let me get this straight. You guys want unborn babies to be killed. You want to give even more money to the government for them to waste. You want a healthcare program, which has cost millions of Americans their insurance. You want an education program, which is extremely difficult and teaches a bunch of useless information. You want them to take away our guns so we have no protection. Dangerous criminals are going to get them anyway. You want the government to decriminalize drug use, which has destroyed numerous peoples' lives. Do you really want all of this?

People want women to have control over their own bodies. They want the rich to pay their fair share. They want healthcare to be affordable to all. They want an education system that gives everyone a chance but does not hold back brighter students. They want ridiculously powerful weaponry to not be so widely available.

Your presentation of those things uses (once again) politically biased rhetoric.

 

[Rayne]

I'm in favor of killing some born babies. I'm thinking of something like twenty-fourth trimester abortions right now.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

Let me get this straight. You guys want unborn babies to be killed. You want to give even more money to the government for them to waste. You want a healthcare program, which has cost millions of Americans their insurance. You want an education program, which is extremely difficult and teaches a bunch of useless information. You want them to take away our guns so we have no protection. Dangerous criminals are going to get them anyway. You want the government to decriminalize drug use, which has destroyed numerous peoples' lives. Do you really want all of this?

You also disregard her email situation as if it's nothing. It is. It's a huge deal. She sent out classified information on a private server. This is a risk to national security, as an enemy could have easily hacked that server. Also do you not find it a little suspicious that she deleted 30,000+ emails before she turned it over to the FBI. What about the fact that she lied about her sending classified information out? She said she didn't, but she clearly did.

What about Benghazi? Maybe it was a mistake, but how do you explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8INIH0JfNA8

It's Hillary Clinton, so of course it doesn't matter.

you're a moron.

I may have said some stupid shit in the start of this thread but I give the crown to you good sir.

 

[klunderbunker]

"You want to take away our guns so we have no protection!"

From what? The military and/or FBI etc coming in to take over? Yes you keep your revolver and see how well it does against say, a group of five trained soldiers with automatic weapons and advanced military training. I'm sure you'll hold out for a good two seconds.

 

[The Doctor]

you're a moron.

I may have said some stupid shit in the start of this thread but I give the crown to you good sir.

He basically quoted verbatim the rhetoric talk show hosts have been pushing for years. Don't pretend he's being particularly stupid or you have any moral high ground just because he's swayed by politically biased language.

I worked at a radio station for a year and had to listen to views like this exactly. It's common, it's out there. You of all people have no right to be condescending to basically a parrot.

I mean they're stupid and wrong and all that but if you're exposed to that shit especially when you're young and impressionable it's going to color your world view.