Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Sep '16 13:11
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/9/1568385/-The-Trump-Foundation-s-biggest-contribution-wasn-t-charity-it-was-an-attack

    That's right, Donald has a "Foundation" like crooked Hillary.

    It's becoming evident to me that these Foundations set up by fat cats like Donald and Hillary are little more than a feel good way to conduct illegal activity.

    Will either be held accountable?

    Hell no.
  2. 11 Sep '16 00:13
    I view entitlements the way I do these Foundations set up by Hillary and Donald.

    Take Social Security for example, people do benefit from it but by in large it is used as a slush fund for politicians who take whatever is left in the pot, leaving behind worthless IOU's.

    Disgusting.
  3. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    11 Sep '16 00:39
    No, fool.

    When are you going to "get it"?

    Trump's "foundation" 's purpose is exactly what you keep saying the purpose of the Clinton Foundation is. To finance and glorify the founder, Donald Trump, as well as to provide payments to other people and other corporations who have helped Donald Trump. It does not exist to actually provide funds to charities, even though some payments have been made to "charities", i.e. other "foundations" owned by other rich people, to pay them for support to Trump or his campaign, including $100k given to the Citizen's United Foundation, whose motives are extremely suspect.

    The Clinton Foundation's mission statement is "to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence." A charity monitor, CharityWatch, says that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016. In 2015, based on revenue of $223 million and an expense ratio of 12%, the foundation spent in excess of $26 million to complete its mission.

    The difference is night and day.
  4. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    11 Sep '16 00:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    I view entitlements the way I do these Foundations set up by Hillary and Donald.

    Take Social Security for example, people do benefit from it but by in large it is used as a slush fund for politicians who take whatever is left in the pot, leaving behind worthless IOU's.

    Disgusting.
    In case you forget, the preamble to the US Constitution states:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Social programs, which you rudely refer to as "entitlements", fall under this purview. Are you saying that you do not believe in the purpose of the US Constitution? In your Randian "worldview", I understand that you support rational and ethical egoism, and reject altruism. She didn't believe the "little people" should be helped, either.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Sep '16 01:29
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    In case you forget, the preamble to the US Constitution states:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitut ...[text shortened]... l egoism, and reject altruism. She didn't believe the "little people" should be helped, either.
    Well said.
  6. 11 Sep '16 02:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    In case you forget, the preamble to the US Constitution states:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitut ...[text shortened]... l egoism, and reject altruism. She didn't believe the "little people" should be helped, either.
    Wow, just wow.

    Because I oppose the current set up of Social Security I oppose the Constitution?

    I guess the authors of the original Constitution also opposed it, because it was not originally put in the Constitution.

    Moreover, you obviously have no problem with politicians stealing funds out of Social Security.

    I misspoke when I said that Social Security was an entitlement. If the truth be known, they are not obligated to give it to you in any way.