Featured 'I've never encountered anything so brazen'

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.

 

The double standard is strong with these two.

 

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?

 

Let me know because I'm writing somebody in.

 

Joanne Deborah Chesimard aka Assata Shakur?

 

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

 

On the clock!

 

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.

 

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.