Lock this thread please

Edit: Nothing to see here...

I thought a lot of private prison owners were making heaps of money of this whole situation. So this doesn't surprise me

Your argument appears to hinge on her philanthropic foundation providing money to this place. If that was fine for the Clinton's, it's fine here. Whichever way, so long as it's consistent.

As an aside, can you please try to find websites with actual sources, as opposed to links out to other, equally dubious media sites? Because some of the "information" presented in that article is laughably tenuous. I mean, referring out to "a left-leaning Facebook page", ffs.

It's a little less damning than it sounds.

Essentially, Betsy DeVos has donated somewhere between $300,000 and $1 million to a non-profit adoption agency called Bethany Christian Services. BCS has also landed a federal foster care contract in which they are set to rehome about eighty migrant children that were forcibly separated from their parents at the border. They also had a pre-existing refugee resettlement contract with the Department of Health and Human Services. It's not clear how much money they are being provided per child, and BCS is evasive when it comes to precise figures, but it has clarified that none of the migrant children are to be put up for adoption and that BCS' goal is simply to house them until they can be reunited with their parents.

The key fault with the story as reported - in Facebook memes, naturally - is that it implies a profit relationship between BCS and Betsy DeVos. There is no such relationship; Betsy DeVos does not own BCS and does not draw a profit from their activities. Some other members of the DeVos family - which is intimately intertwined with Christian political advocacy - have historically been involved with the BCS board, but none are involved currently. There is simply no quid for the quo.

Unfortunately, with a family as wealthy and connected as the DeVos clan are, these kinds of unseemingly financial ties are largely inevitable. This is a problem with several members of Trump's cabinet, particularly Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross - who was revealed to have shorted stock in a Kremlin-linked company days before those links were to be reported by journalists, a much more serious charge than what is now being alleged against Betsy DeVos. This is the real reason billionaires are not often appointed to Cabinet positions; the wealthier a person is, the harder it is for them to separate their financial interests from their political judgment. Apprehended bias is inevitable and actual bias becomes much more likely.

And, of course - it is always very important to fact-check any sensationalist or scandalous stories that you see on Facebook or Twitter, especially if those stories haven't been picked up by major news outlets and double especially if the stories are presented in the form of an infographic. You should do this even - and triple especially - if the stories click neatly with your prior suspicions. All confidence tricks fundamentally rely on exploiting your preconceptions. This is made even easier by Facebook's media algorithms, which find out what your preconceptions are and then work to cater to them. Confirmation bias is a vulnerability in our feeble monkey brains, and we must constantly work to compensate for it.

Catnip1024:
Your argument appears to hinge on her philanthropic foundation providing money to this place. If that was fine for the Clinton's, it's fine here. Whichever way, so long as it's consistent.

As an aside, can you please try to find websites with actual sources, as opposed to links out to other, equally dubious media sites? Because some of the "information" presented in that article is laughably tenuous. I mean, referring out to "a left-leaning Facebook page", ffs.

Now a faux-left leaning character like you is defending Betsy Devos, how sad.

bastardofmelbourne:
It's a little less damning than it sounds.

Essentially, Betsy DeVos has donated somewhere between $300,000 and $1 million to a non-profit adoption agency called Bethany Christian Services. BCS has also landed a federal foster care contract in which they are set to rehome about eighty migrant children that were forcibly separated from their parents at the border. They also had a pre-existing refugee resettlement contract with the Department of Health and Human Services. It's not clear how much money they are being provided per child, and BCS is evasive when it comes to precise figures, but it has clarified that none of the migrant children are to be put up for adoption and that BCS' goal is simply to house them until they can be reunited with their parents.

The key fault with the story as reported - in Facebook memes, naturally - is that it implies a profit relationship between BCS and Betsy DeVos. There is no such relationship; Betsy DeVos does not own BCS and does not draw a profit from their activities. Some other members of the DeVos family - which is intimately intertwined with Christian political advocacy - have historically been involved with the BCS board, but none are involved currently. There is simply no quid for the quo.

Unfortunately, with a family as wealthy and connected as the DeVos clan are, these kinds of unseemingly financial ties are largely inevitable. This is a problem with several members of Trump's cabinet, particularly Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross - who was revealed to have shorted stock in a Kremlin-linked company days before those links were to be reported by journalists, a much more serious charge than what is now being alleged against Betsy DeVos. This is the real reason billionaires are not often appointed to Cabinet positions; the wealthier a person is, the harder it is for them to separate their financial interests from their political judgment. Apprehended bias is inevitable and actual bias becomes much more likely.

And, of course - it is always very important to fact-check any sensationalist or scandalous stories that you see on Facebook or Twitter, especially if those stories haven't been picked up by major news outlets and double especially if the stories are presented in the form of an infographic. You should do this even - and triple especially - if the stories click neatly with your prior suspicions. All confidence tricks fundamentally rely on exploiting your preconceptions. This is made even easier by Facebook's media algorithms, which find out what your preconceptions are and then work to cater to them. Confirmation bias is a vulnerability in our feeble monkey brains, and we must constantly work to compensate for it.

Well I took this info from the Ring of Fire youtube channel and thought she was actually profiting from this. I guess this thread should be locked then. My bad.

WolvDragon:

Catnip1024:
Your argument appears to hinge on her philanthropic foundation providing money to this place. If that was fine for the Clinton's, it's fine here. Whichever way, so long as it's consistent.

As an aside, can you please try to find websites with actual sources, as opposed to links out to other, equally dubious media sites? Because some of the "information" presented in that article is laughably tenuous. I mean, referring out to "a left-leaning Facebook page", ffs.

Now a faux-left leaning character like you is defending Betsy Devos, how sad.

I'm defending consistency of argument.

I distrust the vast majority of billionaires pursuing philanthropic activities.

But it is interesting how you didn't reply to that at the time, but instead sat holding it to try and pull a "gotcha" at some point.

Catnip1024:

WolvDragon:

Catnip1024:
Your argument appears to hinge on her philanthropic foundation providing money to this place. If that was fine for the Clinton's, it's fine here. Whichever way, so long as it's consistent.

As an aside, can you please try to find websites with actual sources, as opposed to links out to other, equally dubious media sites? Because some of the "information" presented in that article is laughably tenuous. I mean, referring out to "a left-leaning Facebook page", ffs.

Now a faux-left leaning character like you is defending Betsy Devos, how sad.

I'm defending consistency of argument.

I distrust the vast majority of billionaires pursuing philanthropic activities.

But it is interesting how you didn't reply to that at the time, but instead sat holding it to try and pull a "gotcha" at some point.

And it's interesting that you always defend Trump and his cronies. You're a pawn of the rich and powerful.

Thread locked on the OPs request.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked