I linked to the Washington Post as well, but you attack a weaker form. I am glad you're not a mod. You'd be utterly incompetent in that role. You're much better at inconsequential asides surrounded by constant re-affirmations.

*yawn*

So yeah, you absolutely don't know what that word means. Thanks for proving me right. It's one of my favorite things that people do around here.

In all fairness, maybe he's just sleepy

In fairness Noodle has a fetish for putting words in people's mouths and then the pseudo-rebuttal.

I just use some pretty standard logic. I ask if you don't know what a word means, you prove you don't know what it means, I credit you with demonstrating that you don't know what it means.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

Lol, so when you say what my argument is and what my sources are, and then rebut it, it's not strawmanning? I think you have some kind of sociopathic double-vision if you still think your represent my argument, which is pretty standard here. I don't think you know what "proof" means, or "argument".

Unless of course you can prove that this is something more than your delusions. I mean, whoever picked you as a mod has terrible judgement. I never said anything remotely like that money in charities operates the way you suggested. No doubt you'll offer "proof".

Pointing at a source you yourself used is not making up a source. You don't know what that word means, still. Maybe take a sec to google it.

I think it's pretty extreme that you try to paint a whole picture based on a link, and your delusions (synonym for "proof" in the Noodle universe), and represent that as the real picture. So, strawman,lies of omition, aka par the course. Who did pick you as a mod? What was their thought-process?

see, that's an ad hominem, you're attacking me, not my position (against forum rules, fwiw, but I guess there's not a mod on atm)

strawman is to ignore one's actual argument and invent an argument for them and attack the fake argument instead of their actual argument

If you'd like to pay me for educating you, you can send money on stars to BonoEdge(KY)

Yah so when you put words in my mouth about charities, it's a strawman, when you leave out much of what I said and sources that I use, it's lie by omition, and when I call you out on it, it's a ad hominem (though entirely relevant). I don't think peddling is permitted, but I wouldn't expect you to care. You put words in people's mouths all the time, and now you essentially cower behind a dictionary.

Bottom line, when you lie about my position about charities, it's a strawman. I mean, are you going to even argue that?

Oh wow, I was giving you credit for this:

being an actual argument that made sense. My mistake. I will definitely never do that again. Best just to LOL at you for believing everything RT and zero hedge says is true. Because 'something something saudi arabia' isn't actually an argument. It's nonsense.

wrt the clinton foundation i dont think the saudi money mattered. saudi arabia isnt just one thing. greenpeace could accept american money at the same time as people in the us were major backers of the ira too (and i dont think the foreign backing for isis is that clear or substantiel).

i also think the foundation was mostly just doing good work too.

the biggest problem imo was all the dodgy characters the clintons surrounded themselves with. there was a chelsea clinton email in the wikileaks stuff about how some pr/lobbying firm connected to the foundation, and paying bill clinton to be on their board, had been selling connections to the clintons. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/u...oundation.html

huma abedin didnt have to get paid by the state department, the clinton foundation and teneo all at the same time either. the clintons always surrounded themselves with shady stuff like that and blurred the lines of what was appropriate.

The Saudis back everybody and how close the US government aligns with the gulf states is a big problem not limited to Clinton Foundation. Gulf state backing of think tanks, media companies is a much bigger problem. Even if Saudis didnt give any money to Clinton foundation, US policy would have been just as gulf state friendly.

Just look at the lack of coverage of the Yemen campaign as opposed to Syria. The gulf state reach is far.

That said, i am uneasy with the concept of taking dirty money to do charity. Usually scumbags have to be charitable to maintain their position. Cant rule through fear alone.

suadi arabia isnt just a unit. you can have some sheik that likes to do coke and **** broads with bill clinton and would like to see less hiv in the world while another is supporting al-nusra. that the money is saudi doesnt in itself disqualify it imo.

The official government policy is one of religious intolerance and removal of human rights in pursuit of the continuation of an autocratic monarchy that rules through instillation of theocratic fear. That some of the beneficiaries of this system genuinely wants to donate to charity hardly makes the acceptance of said money morally justified.

The autocratic nature of the Saudi government does make any official actions the actions of a single unit. (notice how i am not saying anything about terrorism).

Donations to Clinton foundation, support of think tanks such as the Brookings institute, Gulf State owned media buying US media companies are all Gulf state government backed.

Something that reveals how we're all ****ed is how centrist Dems are still bickering with Bernie Bros about like, $15 vs $12 for the minimum wage, or the minor details of a college tuition-free system, or whatever.

Y'all the GOP just ran a guy who literally promised to make everyone's dreams come true. The electorate does not punish candidates for impractical goals.

The Dems should beat the GOP to the punch and introduce Medicare for All as the Obamacare replacement TODAY

i don't think the leadership in the dem party is giving up control any time soon. maybe it's time to start a new, competent party to counter the repugs. I mean, funding will be hard since you're going up against well-funded koch-bots, but there's gotta be some money somewhere for a competent party to get hold of and use for elections.

Nothing is going to happen outside of the 2 party system.

And even if we assume that's not true, this is probably not the time to be splitting the left.

A small splinter could be the reason Dems are in this situation now.

That and nominating a bad candidate and not nominating a good one. But, Bernie did it right and the Democratic Party needs to be taken over from within. Hopefully they don't make the same kind of mistake in 2020.

If Bernie won the White House, we'd still be in approximately the same position: minority of governorships, state governments, etc. The only thing we'd have is WH and maybe SCOTUS. That'd be something, up the shallow dem bench would still be a huge long term problem.

The party has clearly been weak for longer than liberals would like to admit, and if nothing changes in the near future, republicans will likely pass laws to ensure it stays that way.

Child molester got a medal. What a joke, farce and a theatre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoLHn577xIE