The odd thing about the rating from Charity Navigator rating is a few weeks ago I checked the Clinton Foundation there, they were de-rated, not having an understandable business plan, now they're listed with a good rating!
Obviously somebody is trolling somebody, but you can't tell who
I think it's you: https://web.archive.org/web/*/...
I sampled three random dates and all of them had high ratings. Happy to be proven wrong, but so far you claim isn't stacking up.
Is that it?
I agree that one example is a little inconsistent, but it's not like it said one is right and one is wrong. Do you have any others?
It's certainly not enough to write off the entire site from one minor inconsistency, especially since as far as fact checkers go they are usually pretty solid. Maybe you should contact them and let them know? They might acknowledge it and fix it up. Remember, Democracy is not a spectator sport.
What is the purpose of more gun control laws, if not to take guns out of the hands of true criminals?
Reduce gun violence rates as demonstrated in every other developed country that better gun regulations AND lower violence rates than the US.
Your goal is to take them out of the hands of everyone?
No so why do you keep saying that? In fact I've even reiterated this a couple of times that this is not the case yet you persist? This is very strange behaviour...
You made the extraordinary claim, the onus is upon you to support it when challenged.
No, you are making the claim that automatic weapons have a purpose other than killing lots of people. I'd like to know what this is?
This is the second chance you've had to put this to bed but it seems you are struggling with it.
If you can't imagine any use other than "killing lots of people", then that's your limitation (either deliberate or not). All I need to do is point to our constitution which tells me that I don't need to provide any reason at all to keep and bear arms.
Right so it boils down to it's in the bible, it can't be argued with. That's your logic?
You can have you bear arms, but I'm not sure the bears will be happy about it.
I'm saying Hitler's rants against Jews are legendary.
As is Trump's about pretty much anyone who isn't a white male.
He never had a nice thing to say about Jews. He was not trying to "trick" Jews into supporting him only so he could betray them later.
Trump says nice things about blacks and hispanics. He kisses black babies and tweets out smiling pictures of him saying "I love hispanics!!" This is nothing like the behavior of a racist who hates blacks and hispanics.
I'm not racist but... Are you seriously that stupid?
Your argument is that Trump is like Hitler because Hitler didn't write down he wanted to gas Jews,
Nope, you've clearly missed the point.
Trump is racist and sexist because he says sexist and racist things. The counter claim is that he doesn't have any clearly racist/sexist policy so he can't possibly be racist/sexist.
I made the lame attempt to compare Hitler, since Hitler also never had a policy written in black and white saying he would try kill every Jew on the planet. It was supposed to be a lame point because that is exactly how lame the 'Trump isn't racist/sexist' argument is.
Your logic is flawed. Hitler explicitly stated that he hates Jews and that they all had to go, but only implied that he would gas them. Trump has not explicitly stated that he is racist, therefore he is.
How the hell does that work?
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."
No, that's not racist at all...
As has Trump with Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, women etc.
That is my point. The argument is that Trump doesn't have a published policy specifically stating he hates Mexicans, therefore he isn't' racist. The logic behind this is equally stupid.
Try reading, you tool. Hitler explicitly wrote that gassing tens of thousands of Jews was worth losing WW1 and having millions of "good" Germans killed and wounded. Why are you so quick to defend Hitler when somebody gives you specific and direct evidence of his monstrosity?
Yes but that is different from saying he plans to kills million more when he gets elected.
I realise this is stupid, that is my exact point. Claiming Trump isn't racist just because he doesn't have a published policy stating "I hate Mexicans" is equally stupid.
Like you said, the Trump Organization is a private company, and it's up to them to determine what sort of an online setup they choose to have.
Nope. Your personal information, name, address, DoB, tax details, SSN etc is actually protected from third parties by law. Due care must be taken by your employer to ensure this is not unduly exposed to anyone without your permission.
The summary at the top seems to suggest that they bought a server a decade ago, along w/ probably Microsoft Exchange, and never bothered to update it since. Which is not uncommon - how many times have we heard people here say they don't want to upgrade b'cos something is working just fine for them - be it Windows 7, 8 or even XP. That attitude would be even stronger in a company that's not about tech, but rather real estate and construction. I can easily see Trump saying, "We spent $$$ on this server, and it's working just fine, so leave it the heck alone". Or they might hire another security company to build a security apparatus on top of it.
This is embarrassing that you are trying to justify this behaviour. Take the Hillary/Trump context away, this is information security 101.
At least Hillary was smart enough to know how to hide important information. Trump is too stupid to know any better. The knave will always beat the fool.
No, he is not guilty of similar things. He could be storing his emails in plaintext on a public server readable by every single individual on the planet. It's not Hillary's lack of server security that is the problem. It's the existence and use of a private server for public business that is the problem.
Is that also a problem for Condi Rice, and Colin Powell who did similar things?
Trump's emails are his personal and business emails. They are not subject to national security classification rules. They are not subject to FOIA retention requirements. They are subject to whatever the hell Trump wants which may or may not include security to the extent that Trump demands.
Actually, as a business owner he has legal responsibility to enure his employees personal information is secure. He failed that responsibility, and given any other scenario every person in this forum would agree that this is neglect. Only because you're a Trump fanboy you excusing a multi-billion dollar business to run such shoddy information security.
Perhaps you should listen and fact check a few instead of immediately having a closed mind.
That would be like arguing with a religious person about God. Nothing you can say, do, demonstrate or prove will change their minds.
For the record I'm not claiming Hillary is an ideal president, she would just be less of a fuckup that the Man-baby Trump. And all of the independently verifiable evidence backs that up.
But don't take my word for it, if senior Republicans and Fox News are even struggling to support Trump, there's more to it than just media bias.
Actually, citizen private data has legal protection, and every business stores that somewhere for HR/payroll/tax purposes. So there could be some legal implications here.
When someone points out Hillary's crimes there is always someone that pops up with "well Bush did this" or Cheney did that...the crimes of past presidents are irrelevant to discussion. We're talking about Hillary being a criminal, stay on topic
Except in law it does matter, because the law has to be consistent. So if want to convict Hillary, you'll also have to line up Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and George W Bush.
The simple fact is everyone did it, including Trump, which is why it's a non-issue. You can't convict them all.
Precisely! It's not like Trump has overridden the State Department and insisted in substituting their secure servers for his insecure ones.
No-one is pretending that Trump's email is as important as the Secretary of State, but it makes his claims a little weak when he is guilty of similar things.
Can you point to the where Hitler said he intends to gas the Jews?
Are you kidding? Sure, easily. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf in the '20s. He said:
If at the beginning of the war and during the war [WWI] twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain
So, better if we had gassed the Jews, and he also said:
the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated
Are those passages too subtle?
I'm channeling Donald Trump here: 'he never said that he was going to gas the Jews'.
According to Trump fans, he has never explicitly said he is racist therefore he isn't. You show me where Hitler said " My policy is to gas Jews by the millions" and I'll concede Trump isn't racist.
I was going to answer, but I see the ScentCone has beat me to most of my valid points, especially about the Oz example.
Invalid points that have been debunked numerous times. Copy pasted here:
Dude I live in Australia so you are wasting your time with this line of reasoning.
Guns were not confiscated, the govt offered a buy back scheme which owners could voluntarily sell their guns back to the state if they wanted to. Certain types of guns are restricted (eg automatic weapons which aren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people), but my uncle is a farmer and has a whole cupboard full of rifles. Another uncle is a keen hunter and also has a few. I have a pistol club just around the corner where I can go shoot stuff if I want. The big change since the buy back in 1996 is we've had zero (ZERO!) mass shootings since then.
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
So, yes, I fear for my existing gun freedoms.
Maybe you should make your decision based on reason rather than fear? Especially since the scenario you fear didn't actually happen (see above)
And as that you are a non-American, it shouldn't really matter one way or another to you, should it?
Of course it matters, just like starving kids in Africa matter. Most of us strive for a better world.
It's nice that you're interested, but you really needn't bless us with your 'superior' and more 'civilized' outlook on weapons where you live. If you don't like to have full freedoms like we have here (guns being one of them) then fine, stay where you are, but don't moralize or try to talk down how we have things here.
None of your business....
But full freedom means I can come here and say these things, or do you now suddenly not like "full freedom" anymore? This seems to be an inconsistent position...
I would normally tell you to read transcripts and watch tapes. Since time is rather short and there is much to learn, let me point you to a Philosophy show who also dabbles in the journalism so lacking in media today.
Just a word of caution: Since the media is so biased it may seem shocking to the system to get a different view. Taking the red pill as it were. Always, check sources if you are in doubt. Stefan provides them all, but may be found easier on his web site compared to Youtube.
Oh Jesus what a load of horse shit. That channel is clearly Pro-Trump/Anti-Hillary so how would you expect to get impartial material from that?
I could only sit through the first few minutes, but nothing was presented as fact, it was all pro-Trump rhetoric. The easiest measure of bias is see whether the content contains both pro and cons message from both sides. If it's 100% pro Hillary it can't be trusted, and if it 100% pro Trump it can't be trusted.
Here's an example of what you should be looking for: http://www.politifact.com/
Real, measurable and impartial facts of both sides, not just one side's opinion.
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing?.... If she can stuff the court with activists who will follow her lead on that, that's exactly the approach to an Australia-style confiscation of privately owned guns.
Dude I live in Australia so you are wasting your time with this line of reasoning.
Guns were not confiscated, the govt offered a buy back scheme which owners could voluntarily sell their guns back to the state if they wanted to. Certain types of guns are restricted (eg automatic weapons which aren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people), but my uncle is a farmer and has a whole cupboard full of rifles. Another uncle is a keen hunter and also has a few. I have a pistol club just around the corner where I can go shoot stuff if I want. The big change since the buy back in 1996 is we've had zero (ZERO!) mass shootings since then.
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
So, you were saying that as long as you label someone as a "tyrant", he is bad, there is no need for any evidence and discussion?
Nope. He is a tyrant because there is plenty of evidence and discussion to back that up. Or have you been living under a rock the last 18 months?
In fact I'd go so far as to say Trump's tyrannical behaviour is the single most discussed thing this year.
The only tyrant I see here is you.
Sure, but I'm not running for leader of the free world right?
Slashdot Mirror
or is it something that, just like the DNC hacks merely ascribed to Russia with zero evidence offered?
Er, there is evidence, even if you choose to ignore that fact:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/...
http://www.esquire.com/news-po...
The odd thing about the rating from Charity Navigator rating is a few weeks ago I checked the Clinton Foundation there, they were de-rated, not having an understandable business plan, now they're listed with a good rating! Obviously somebody is trolling somebody, but you can't tell who
I think it's you: https://web.archive.org/web/*/... I sampled three random dates and all of them had high ratings. Happy to be proven wrong, but so far you claim isn't stacking up.
Is that it?
I agree that one example is a little inconsistent, but it's not like it said one is right and one is wrong. Do you have any others?
It's certainly not enough to write off the entire site from one minor inconsistency, especially since as far as fact checkers go they are usually pretty solid. Maybe you should contact them and let them know? They might acknowledge it and fix it up. Remember, Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Hillary Clinton is just as racist as Donald Trump, and perhaps more so.
That's an extraordinary claim, I'm sure you'll have extraordinary evidence to back that up?
What is the purpose of more gun control laws, if not to take guns out of the hands of true criminals?
Reduce gun violence rates as demonstrated in every other developed country that better gun regulations AND lower violence rates than the US.
Your goal is to take them out of the hands of everyone?
No so why do you keep saying that? In fact I've even reiterated this a couple of times that this is not the case yet you persist? This is very strange behaviour...
You made the extraordinary claim, the onus is upon you to support it when challenged.
No, you are making the claim that automatic weapons have a purpose other than killing lots of people. I'd like to know what this is?
This is the second chance you've had to put this to bed but it seems you are struggling with it.
If you can't imagine any use other than "killing lots of people", then that's your limitation (either deliberate or not). All I need to do is point to our constitution which tells me that I don't need to provide any reason at all to keep and bear arms.
Right so it boils down to it's in the bible, it can't be argued with. That's your logic?
You can have you bear arms, but I'm not sure the bears will be happy about it.
Got it, you are so closed minded that you won't try to hear anything you don't already believe. Good luck with that.
You are beyond help. I just explained the difference between biased and unbiased sources and you just ignored that.
Let me guess are you religious?
I'm saying Hitler's rants against Jews are legendary.
As is Trump's about pretty much anyone who isn't a white male.
He never had a nice thing to say about Jews. He was not trying to "trick" Jews into supporting him only so he could betray them later.
Trump says nice things about blacks and hispanics. He kisses black babies and tweets out smiling pictures of him saying "I love hispanics!!" This is nothing like the behavior of a racist who hates blacks and hispanics.
I'm not racist but... Are you seriously that stupid?
Your argument is that Trump is like Hitler because Hitler didn't write down he wanted to gas Jews,
Nope, you've clearly missed the point.
Trump is racist and sexist because he says sexist and racist things. The counter claim is that he doesn't have any clearly racist/sexist policy so he can't possibly be racist/sexist.
I made the lame attempt to compare Hitler, since Hitler also never had a policy written in black and white saying he would try kill every Jew on the planet. It was supposed to be a lame point because that is exactly how lame the 'Trump isn't racist/sexist' argument is.
Your logic is flawed. Hitler explicitly stated that he hates Jews and that they all had to go, but only implied that he would gas them. Trump has not explicitly stated that he is racist, therefore he is.
How the hell does that work?
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists."
No, that's not racist at all...
As has Trump with Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, women etc.
That is my point. The argument is that Trump doesn't have a published policy specifically stating he hates Mexicans, therefore he isn't' racist. The logic behind this is equally stupid.
Try reading, you tool. Hitler explicitly wrote that gassing tens of thousands of Jews was worth losing WW1 and having millions of "good" Germans killed and wounded. Why are you so quick to defend Hitler when somebody gives you specific and direct evidence of his monstrosity?
Yes but that is different from saying he plans to kills million more when he gets elected.
I realise this is stupid, that is my exact point. Claiming Trump isn't racist just because he doesn't have a published policy stating "I hate Mexicans" is equally stupid.
Like you said, the Trump Organization is a private company, and it's up to them to determine what sort of an online setup they choose to have.
Nope. Your personal information, name, address, DoB, tax details, SSN etc is actually protected from third parties by law. Due care must be taken by your employer to ensure this is not unduly exposed to anyone without your permission.
The summary at the top seems to suggest that they bought a server a decade ago, along w/ probably Microsoft Exchange, and never bothered to update it since. Which is not uncommon - how many times have we heard people here say they don't want to upgrade b'cos something is working just fine for them - be it Windows 7, 8 or even XP. That attitude would be even stronger in a company that's not about tech, but rather real estate and construction. I can easily see Trump saying, "We spent $$$ on this server, and it's working just fine, so leave it the heck alone". Or they might hire another security company to build a security apparatus on top of it.
This is embarrassing that you are trying to justify this behaviour. Take the Hillary/Trump context away, this is information security 101.
At least Hillary was smart enough to know how to hide important information. Trump is too stupid to know any better. The knave will always beat the fool.
No, he is not guilty of similar things. He could be storing his emails in plaintext on a public server readable by every single individual on the planet. It's not Hillary's lack of server security that is the problem. It's the existence and use of a private server for public business that is the problem. Is that also a problem for Condi Rice, and Colin Powell who did similar things? Trump's emails are his personal and business emails. They are not subject to national security classification rules. They are not subject to FOIA retention requirements. They are subject to whatever the hell Trump wants which may or may not include security to the extent that Trump demands.
Actually, as a business owner he has legal responsibility to enure his employees personal information is secure. He failed that responsibility, and given any other scenario every person in this forum would agree that this is neglect. Only because you're a Trump fanboy you excusing a multi-billion dollar business to run such shoddy information security.
Perhaps you should listen and fact check a few instead of immediately having a closed mind.
That would be like arguing with a religious person about God. Nothing you can say, do, demonstrate or prove will change their minds.
For the record I'm not claiming Hillary is an ideal president, she would just be less of a fuckup that the Man-baby Trump. And all of the independently verifiable evidence backs that up.
But don't take my word for it, if senior Republicans and Fox News are even struggling to support Trump, there's more to it than just media bias.
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
Right so where is the problem?
The idea that "just one more law" will take guns out of the hands of true criminals
I never said it would.
By the way, your claim that automatic weapons have no use other than "killing lots of people" kinda gives away your anti-gun bias.
Not anti-gun, just anti-unecessary-gun-violence. As I already said, my family owns plenty of guns and I have access to them when I want.
The fact that you do not want to admit to any other use doesn't mean they don't actually have any.
Well you could've used this space to give us a reason, but since you didn't I can only assume you couldn't think of anything else either...
Actually, citizen private data has legal protection, and every business stores that somewhere for HR/payroll/tax purposes. So there could be some legal implications here.
UNDERSTOOD?
When someone points out Hillary's crimes there is always someone that pops up with "well Bush did this" or Cheney did that...the crimes of past presidents are irrelevant to discussion. We're talking about Hillary being a criminal, stay on topic
Except in law it does matter, because the law has to be consistent. So if want to convict Hillary, you'll also have to line up Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and George W Bush.
The simple fact is everyone did it, including Trump, which is why it's a non-issue. You can't convict them all.
Precisely! It's not like Trump has overridden the State Department and insisted in substituting their secure servers for his insecure ones.
No-one is pretending that Trump's email is as important as the Secretary of State, but it makes his claims a little weak when he is guilty of similar things.
Are you kidding? Sure, easily. He wrote a book called Mein Kampf in the '20s. He said:
So, better if we had gassed the Jews, and he also said:
Are those passages too subtle?
I'm channeling Donald Trump here: 'he never said that he was going to gas the Jews'. According to Trump fans, he has never explicitly said he is racist therefore he isn't. You show me where Hitler said " My policy is to gas Jews by the millions" and I'll concede Trump isn't racist.
I was going to answer, but I see the ScentCone has beat me to most of my valid points, especially about the Oz example.
Invalid points that have been debunked numerous times. Copy pasted here:
Dude I live in Australia so you are wasting your time with this line of reasoning. Guns were not confiscated, the govt offered a buy back scheme which owners could voluntarily sell their guns back to the state if they wanted to. Certain types of guns are restricted (eg automatic weapons which aren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people), but my uncle is a farmer and has a whole cupboard full of rifles. Another uncle is a keen hunter and also has a few. I have a pistol club just around the corner where I can go shoot stuff if I want. The big change since the buy back in 1996 is we've had zero (ZERO!) mass shootings since then. Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
So, yes, I fear for my existing gun freedoms.
Maybe you should make your decision based on reason rather than fear? Especially since the scenario you fear didn't actually happen (see above)
And as that you are a non-American, it shouldn't really matter one way or another to you, should it?
Of course it matters, just like starving kids in Africa matter. Most of us strive for a better world.
It's nice that you're interested, but you really needn't bless us with your 'superior' and more 'civilized' outlook on weapons where you live. If you don't like to have full freedoms like we have here (guns being one of them) then fine, stay where you are, but don't moralize or try to talk down how we have things here.
None of your business....
But full freedom means I can come here and say these things, or do you now suddenly not like "full freedom" anymore? This seems to be an inconsistent position...
I would normally tell you to read transcripts and watch tapes. Since time is rather short and there is much to learn, let me point you to a Philosophy show who also dabbles in the journalism so lacking in media today.
Just a word of caution: Since the media is so biased it may seem shocking to the system to get a different view. Taking the red pill as it were. Always, check sources if you are in doubt. Stefan provides them all, but may be found easier on his web site compared to Youtube.
Oh Jesus what a load of horse shit. That channel is clearly Pro-Trump/Anti-Hillary so how would you expect to get impartial material from that?
I could only sit through the first few minutes, but nothing was presented as fact, it was all pro-Trump rhetoric. The easiest measure of bias is see whether the content contains both pro and cons message from both sides. If it's 100% pro Hillary it can't be trusted, and if it 100% pro Trump it can't be trusted.
Here's an example of what you should be looking for: http://www.politifact.com/
Real, measurable and impartial facts of both sides, not just one side's opinion.
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing? .... If she can stuff the court with activists who will follow her lead on that, that's exactly the approach to an Australia-style confiscation of privately owned guns.
Dude I live in Australia so you are wasting your time with this line of reasoning.
Guns were not confiscated, the govt offered a buy back scheme which owners could voluntarily sell their guns back to the state if they wanted to. Certain types of guns are restricted (eg automatic weapons which aren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people), but my uncle is a farmer and has a whole cupboard full of rifles. Another uncle is a keen hunter and also has a few. I have a pistol club just around the corner where I can go shoot stuff if I want. The big change since the buy back in 1996 is we've had zero (ZERO!) mass shootings since then.
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
So, you were saying that as long as you label someone as a "tyrant", he is bad, there is no need for any evidence and discussion?
Nope. He is a tyrant because there is plenty of evidence and discussion to back that up. Or have you been living under a rock the last 18 months?
In fact I'd go so far as to say Trump's tyrannical behaviour is the single most discussed thing this year.
The only tyrant I see here is you.
Sure, but I'm not running for leader of the free world right?
Didn't write it down though, and apparently that's the only evidence that it acceptable around here...
I guess it's a morality question you have to answer for yourself. Is donating blood money a net moral good?
Are 2 children helped in Africa helped by the Clinton Foundation worth the homosexual that was hung by some Saudis?
You do realise that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are two different countries yeah?
The government runs the country, or do you know something I don't?