Personal insults don't move the conversation forward.
My point is simple: the opaque nature of the site is suspicious, and the wording about "debating" CEOs, etc is an interesting choice as well: rather than "engaging", "learning from", "hearing from" etc.
I'm all for what they ostensibly represent: social/poltical science and the constitution. Both subjects all citizens should be able to have critical reasoning skills about.
The fact that the current regime is flagrantly ignoring the constitution, that it's adherents don't mind at all, and that they are likely aligned with this org is worthy of scrutiny.