In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Can we have a rational discussion about Trump's
Don McManus
Member Posts: 23,491 ✭✭✭✭
Can we have a rational discussion about Trump's Press Conference regarding his money raising for Vets?
I hope so.
I watched the beginning of the Press Conference. I turned it off when he started the personal insults. While journalists in general deserve a great deal of criticism, upon further examination, Trump's verbal assault is worth discussion.
While it is true that most, if not all of the $ 5.6 million he helped raise has been distributed to various Veteran's groups, it is also true that 40% of it was distributed after the Washington Post ran the story questioning why more of the money had not been distributed.
So Trump is either afraid of or too embarrassed by his actions to face Megyn Kelly in a debate in Iowa. That is fine.
He holds a rally to raise money for Veterans. This is great.
He distributes 60% of the $ 5.6 million raised within four months. This is very good, given that the charities had to be vetted.
A negative newspaper article is written about monies that have not been distributed, and then we see the following:
1. A mad dash to distribute over $ 2 million within a matter of a couple of days.
2. The announcement of a Press Conference on the subject some 6 days later.
3. The first question of the Press Conference is about the money, and Mr. Trump cites the figures and lists the charities receiving the money, and many times states that all $ 5.6 million has been distributed. So far so good.
4. He then goes off the rails and lashes out at the lying sleazy media who purposefully distorted the story so as to make Trump look bad. Trump did not once mention that he did, in fact direct that the 40% balance of the money was sent out following the story.
So:
1. Was Trump's visible and visceral anger at the press justified or justifiable?
2. Did Trump willfully distort the record and mislead the viewers with his reporting of the monies?
3. Given the facts of the case, was the attack on the press something that an open and honest person would do; a person with the temperament we should expect of a President?
I hope so.
I watched the beginning of the Press Conference. I turned it off when he started the personal insults. While journalists in general deserve a great deal of criticism, upon further examination, Trump's verbal assault is worth discussion.
While it is true that most, if not all of the $ 5.6 million he helped raise has been distributed to various Veteran's groups, it is also true that 40% of it was distributed after the Washington Post ran the story questioning why more of the money had not been distributed.
So Trump is either afraid of or too embarrassed by his actions to face Megyn Kelly in a debate in Iowa. That is fine.
He holds a rally to raise money for Veterans. This is great.
He distributes 60% of the $ 5.6 million raised within four months. This is very good, given that the charities had to be vetted.
A negative newspaper article is written about monies that have not been distributed, and then we see the following:
1. A mad dash to distribute over $ 2 million within a matter of a couple of days.
2. The announcement of a Press Conference on the subject some 6 days later.
3. The first question of the Press Conference is about the money, and Mr. Trump cites the figures and lists the charities receiving the money, and many times states that all $ 5.6 million has been distributed. So far so good.
4. He then goes off the rails and lashes out at the lying sleazy media who purposefully distorted the story so as to make Trump look bad. Trump did not once mention that he did, in fact direct that the 40% balance of the money was sent out following the story.
So:
1. Was Trump's visible and visceral anger at the press justified or justifiable?
2. Did Trump willfully distort the record and mislead the viewers with his reporting of the monies?
3. Given the facts of the case, was the attack on the press something that an open and honest person would do; a person with the temperament we should expect of a President?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Brad Steele
Brad Steele
Comments
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Like to see Trump attack the media,, some times the media has a "Deer in the Headlights" look.
Where's the link to the press conference>?
Like to see Trump attack the media,, some times the media has a "Deer in the Headlights" look.
Trump starts at about the 21 minute mark.
Brad Steele
Someone who raises money, properly verifies the recipients are qualified, distributes the money and does not charge any kind of a fee,, gets my vote.
Personally the press have been a bunch of "ly'n" dickweeds for at least 40 years and it's about time someone brought it to their attention,, up close and personal.
PS: Thanks for the link. Shame the cameras didn't show the expressions on the questioners faces.
Opinion is that after 50 + years of watching the governments (Federal/State/local} be so absolutely incompetent and WASTEFUL of tax payer money that anything different would be impossible and things did continue to get worse.
Someone who raises money, properly verifies the recipients are qualified, distributes the money and does not charge any kind of a fee,, gets my vote.
Personally the press have been a bunch of "ly'n" dickweeds for at least 40 years and it's about time someone brought it to their attention,, up close and personal.
PS: Thanks for the link. Shame the cameras didn't show the expressions on the questioners faces.
So, to the point, you do not believe that Trump distorted the record or mislead the audience in any way, and was perfectly justified in how he responded to the questions.
You are also comfortable with your President behaving in this manner.
Did I get this correct?
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you did not directly address the questions posed.
Brad Steele
Hopefully, from my earlier comment it's clear: I don't like Trump and don't trust him. And if you get past all the media hype over what was suggested (instead of actually said) Brad Thor, speaking on Glenn Beck's show was right on the mark. Trump as president would likely be an uncontrollable tyrant. I think the only good about it is the Democrats are not as wimpy and wishy washy as the members of the GOP and may actually make moves to block some of his nonsense.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
No.
[:D]
Brad Steele
Several weeks ago NBC Nightly News opened with Lester Holt saying that Donald Trump was "repeating a widely debunked rumor that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster"
The clip they aired on Trump caught him saying Foster's death was "fishy". That's it. Foster's death was "fishy", but it doesn't mean he was murdered. At any rate, Trump never said it was a murder and furthermore went on to say he didn't think it was an issue for this campaign.
A couple of nights before that, there was a celebrity "Jeopardy" tournament with Michael Steele (former GOP head) as a contestant and Alex Trebec took a couple of shots at Trump.....on a non-partisan game show.
I've never seen anything like it.
Good plan Don. We should discuss it now because if and when Trump is president it seems such critical discussion will be silenced.
What? Trump is going to buy all the media ? Enact laws about what can or can't be said? Change the Constitution ?
2. Did Trump willfully distort the record and mislead the viewers with his reporting of the monies? Perhaps, but no more than the MSM will do to those they oppose. 60% of 5.6 M is far and above what any other candidate has done. How long did it take for ALL the funds to be distributed that were collected for 9-11?
3. Given the facts of the case, was the attack on the press something that an open and honest person would do YES, it's the media not a nuclear power; a person with the temperament we should expect of a President? This could be troublesome in that I have seen little restraint. I would think the best deal makers display Statesmanship, but are better deals all we need. Dealing from a position of strength would be appropriate IF you understand your strength and the consequences of failing.
I am not a fan of the Donald. I see him as a loud mouth bully that can "act presidential". Could this be more desirable than someone that sides with our enemies?
Another "veiled post" to discredit Donald Trump...nothing honest here..."If Trump says it".....got to be dishonest!...(puke)...remind me of a Abbot and Costello skit....[:(]..The facts are, that Trump is the voice of all the unheard from citizens,an the anti political correctness people...its about time...
My position on Trump is no secret. I saw something in the press conference that I found disturbing on a level deeper than his previous rants, however, and wanted to get the take of Trump supporters on this one.
So far, other than casper1947, I have yet to see a reasonable response that shows any thought about what actually occurred.
Your post included.
Don
Brad Steele
1. Was Trump's visible and visceral anger at the press justified or justifiable? YES
2. Did Trump willfully distort the record and mislead the viewers with his reporting of the monies? Perhaps, but no more than the MSM will do to those they oppose. 60% of 5.6 M is far and above what any other candidate has done. How long did it take for ALL the funds to be distributed that were collected for 9-11?
3. Given the facts of the case, was the attack on the press something that an open and honest person would do YES, it's the media not a nuclear power; a person with the temperament we should expect of a President? This could be troublesome in that I have seen little restraint. I would think the best deal makers display Statesmanship, but are better deals all we need. Dealing from a position of strength would be appropriate IF you understand your strength and the consequences of failing.
I am not a fan of the Donald. I see him as a loud mouth bully that can "act presidential". Could this be more desirable than someone that sides with our enemies?
Thank for a rational response, casper1947.
I too thought that distributing 60% of the monies in four short months was a pretty good record, and said so in the OP. What I found disturbing was how disingenuous he was at the press conference. He discussed the disbursement of all the monies and of his $ 1 million personal donation as if it had occurred well before the Washington Post piece, and called out the press as if that was the case.
The facts are that the 40%, and his $ 1 million donation were only disbursed after the Washington Post article. Had he been truthful about the timing, I see no problem, and wouldn't have given it a second thought. That he would attempt to distort the facts of the matter in an attempt to validate some previous misleading statements, and then falsely lash out at people who were simply holding him to his previous statements is troubling.
I find it also troubling that Trump supporters refuse to consider what actually occurred, and throw out patently false statements about finally someone 'verbally abusing the news media with the truth' when in this case, the truth was so obviously with the media.
Trump was given wide latitude by the press for most of the primary season. Some would say he was given not only a pass, but sufficient free exposure such that his candidacy was made possible.
If this is how he reacts to factual negative press, we are in for an interesting general campaign season.[:)]
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
Another "veiled post" to discredit Donald Trump...nothing honest here..."If Trump says it".....got to be dishonest!...(puke)...remind me of a Abbot and Costello skit....[:(]..The facts are, that Trump is the voice of all the unheard from citizens,an the anti political correctness people...its about time...
My position on Trump is no secret. I saw something in the press conference that I found disturbing on a level deeper than his previous rants, however, and wanted to get the take of Trump supporters on this one.
So far, other than casper1947, I have yet to see a reasonable response that shows any thought about what actually occurred.
Your post included.
Don
I thought it was disingenuous, as I said. And his truck with the media, while valid, was positioned at a misopportune time, because in fact the previous story did in fact spur on additional distribution of funds, or if it didn't it the two events had a coincidence that was not cleared up by any of the remarks.
Generally, I find some of Trumps attacks on the media to be over the top, so much so that this one prompted my first comment. He's threatened lawsuits of the media in the past, and I find that to be even more troubling than what transpired this time. This event just shows a pattern consistent with what I find to be concerning... the silencing of thought that is opposed to him.
And I apologize for my outbursting mode that did not make that clear in any rational way. You were seeking thoughtful comment and I opted for the low road, choosing instead to voice my anger at the way Trump acts. My apologies, Don.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I don't have a comment on this particular story, as I haven't seen the press conference....however, I will say that the attacks by the media on Trump by the media have hit the point of being ridiculous.
Several weeks ago NBC Nightly News opened with Lester Holt saying that Donald Trump was "repeating a widely debunked rumor that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster"
The clip they aired on Trump caught him saying Foster's death was "fishy". That's it. Foster's death was "fishy", but it doesn't mean he was murdered. At any rate, Trump never said it was a murder and furthermore went on to say he didn't think it was an issue for this campaign.
A couple of nights before that, there was a celebrity "Jeopardy" tournament with Michael Steele (former GOP head) as a contestant and Alex Trebec took a couple of shots at Trump.....on a non-partisan game show.
I've never seen anything like it.
I agree, Mr. Ops. The press has turned and is pressuring/goading Trump now unlike how they treated him when he was only going after his GOP rivals. I would suspect that many now see him as possibly winning, and sharpening the knives so as to cut him down if he looks like he will win.
Brad Steele
1. Was Trump's visible and visceral anger at the press justified or justifiable?
Yes, considering the MSM political leanings, it was long overdue for some serious pushback and a trip to the woodshed.
2. Did Trump willfully distort the record and mislead the viewers with his reporting of the monies?
Hard to say but considering that neither Clinton nor Sanders have done squat for veterans I'm willing to give Trump a little leeway (not much but a little).
3. Given the facts of the case, was the attack on the press something that an open and honest person would do; a person with the temperament we should expect of a President?
YES! He could have handled it better but the media never expects being smacked or even called out for it's antics. Objectivity is rarely considered in it's reporting and truth went out with the bath water long ago. That said, if Trump is elected his typical responses could lead to some serious repercussions. Think physics here, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So he has to be mindful when opening his mouth that he doesn't insert both feet.
[/quote]
Was there, or is there, some specified timeline in place for these distributions to be completed by?
Is it possible that Trump and/or his staff had a few other priorities and were working through a process?
Are there other charities and/or charitable organizations that have ties to other national candidates that could or should receive comparable scrutiny by the mainstream media? If so, are they in fact receiving that scrutiny?
We here on GB often speak of the need to 'fix what ails the US'. In my mind, ending the ability of the press to freely operate as an unofficial arm of the democrat party ought to be part of that repair. That will not happen if we always begin our discussions somewhere past where the malfeasance of the press begins a fight or highlights what they consider an 'issue'.
YMMV
Hell all Sharpton is about three years late owing a couple million to the IRS. Nothing on that. The press deserve a lot more butt chewing than they got. Even Rush said it was about time.
I think that any discussion of the donations and distributions needs some context.
Was there, or is there, some specified timeline in place for these distributions to be completed by?
Is it possible that Trump and/or his staff had a few other priorities and were working through a process?
Are there other charities and/or charitable organizations that have ties to other national candidates that could or should receive comparable scrutiny by the mainstream media? If so, are they in fact receiving that scrutiny?
We here on GB often speak of the need to 'fix what ails the US'. In my mind, ending the ability of the press to freely operate as an unofficial arm of the democrat party ought to be part of that repair. That will not happen if we always begin our discussions somewhere past where the malfeasance of the press begins a fight or highlights what they consider an 'issue'.
YMMV
Excellent points. Trump could have avoided the appearances of duplicity simply by stating that the prior article prompted him to speed up the distribution process, and that he did so just to satisfy the ninnies in the press. Any clarifying remark would have sufficed, IMO. That simple statement (or one to that affect) would have gone a long ways to strengthening his credibility in the matter.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I think that any discussion of the donations and distributions needs some context.
Was there, or is there, some specified timeline in place for these distributions to be completed by?
Is it possible that Trump and/or his staff had a few other priorities and were working through a process?
Are there other charities and/or charitable organizations that have ties to other national candidates that could or should receive comparable scrutiny by the mainstream media? If so, are they in fact receiving that scrutiny?
We here on GB often speak of the need to 'fix what ails the US'. In my mind, ending the ability of the press to freely operate as an unofficial arm of the democrat party ought to be part of that repair. That will not happen if we always begin our discussions somewhere past where the malfeasance of the press begins a fight or highlights what they consider an 'issue'.
YMMV
As stated a couple of times, there was nothing wrong, IMO with the time line Trump was on. It takes a while to distribute $ 5.6 million, and had he come out with where he was in the process when the question was raised, I cannot see there being a problem.
He chose, however, to be duplicitous, to fudge the truth, and engage in a last minute cash dump so that he could hold a press conference and falsely accuse the press of mis-reporting.
As with most politicians in trouble, the reaction is often times much worse than the action.
Perhaps the point is being deliberately ignored, but it has much less to do with donating money than how he told us he was donating money.
Brad Steele
When a person pledges money to a charity is there a due date. I don't think so. In my opinion this was a media play timed to make Trump look like a phony. Why would a man with 11 billion dollars try that sort of trick? The media would never think of this sort of tactic on the Clintons. Hillary is probably the most corrupt person ever in American politics. What do we hear from the regular media about her so called charitable foundation. It is nothing but a vacation fund for her and all her cohorts. The alphabet channels spent more time on the gorilla story than on Hillary's corruption. We have a Traitor in office and a replacement on the ballot. But who cares about that. What's more important is the fact that Trump took a few days too long to give a million dollars to the Veterans that he never had to give to begin with. How would you like to get a million dollars 10 days late??
Hell all Sharpton is about three years late owing a couple million to the IRS. Nothing on that. The press deserve a lot more butt chewing than they got. Even Rush said it was about time.
An honest response by Trump would have made this whole thing go away, would it not? What would motivate a man to create the fiction he created?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
I think that any discussion of the donations and distributions needs some context.
Was there, or is there, some specified timeline in place for these distributions to be completed by?
Is it possible that Trump and/or his staff had a few other priorities and were working through a process?
Are there other charities and/or charitable organizations that have ties to other national candidates that could or should receive comparable scrutiny by the mainstream media? If so, are they in fact receiving that scrutiny?
We here on GB often speak of the need to 'fix what ails the US'. In my mind, ending the ability of the press to freely operate as an unofficial arm of the democrat party ought to be part of that repair. That will not happen if we always begin our discussions somewhere past where the malfeasance of the press begins a fight or highlights what they consider an 'issue'.
YMMV
As stated a couple of times, there was nothing wrong, IMO with the time line Trump was on. It takes a while to distribute $ 5.6 million, and had he come out with where he was in the process when the question was raised, I cannot see there being a problem.
He chose, however, to be duplicitous, to fudge the truth, and engage in a last minute cash dump so that he could hold a press conference and falsely accuse the press of mis-reporting.
As with most politicians in trouble, the reaction is often times much worse than the action.
Perhaps the point is being deliberately ignored, but it has much less to do with donating money than how he told us he was donating money.
I do understand your point Don, and it may very well be that Trump could have answered the questions better, or differently. That said, my point still stands in that Trump was being asked about his fundraising and how long the process was taking, but I have yet to see or hear the major media outlets focus on the Clinton Foundation and its shady operations.
The guy who found the accounting shenanigans at GE reported a few months ago that the CF was basically a cash cow for the Clinton's. In 2013 I think he found they used just 10% of its budget for actual charitable activities. The response from the media?
quote:On Wednesday's CNN Newsroom, host Carol Costello sided with liberal CNN contributor Sally Kohn in rejecting outright the idea that the Clinton Foundation could be corrupt. During a discussion on the charges brought against Trump University and each candidate's contributions to veterans, Trump supporter Gina Loudon asserted that the Clinton Foundation keeps the majority of its donations instead of giving it out to vets. Costello and Kohn scoffed at the criticism, while Costello acted as if she had never even heard that the foundation faced ethical controversies. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/06/01/cnn-scoffs-idea-clinton-foundation-could-be-corrupt
We can spend time and effort worrying about how Trump could have or should have handled the questions. Or we can start asking why the Clintons aren't being asked the questions at all. I know which one I intend to focus on.
The media will give each of their transgressions a passing nod, and then after a week or so, call it old news and move on.
It is just the way it is, and it is wrong but will not likely change over the next 6 months.
Trump, however, has branded himself as someone who is different. Someone who 'tells it like it is'. This press conference is just the latest in a long line of instances where he has proven to be just like any other politician: disingenuous, duplicitous, quick to go on the defensive and, frankly, a self-aggrandizing fool.
I am inclined to think he would be better than Clinton in the White House, but these types of things are worrisome. He set up the press conference to be asked the questions he was asked. It was in his pre-conference announcements that his fundraising efforts were to be the focus. It seems that he called this for the two-fold purpose of misleading the public and falsely trashing the press.
He runs as an outsider, something different. I fear he is just more of the same.
Brad Steele
When a person pledges money to a charity is there a due date. I don't think so. In my opinion this was a media play timed to make Trump look like a phony. Why would a man with 11 billion dollars try that sort of trick? The media would never think of this sort of tactic on the Clintons. Hillary is probably the most corrupt person ever in American politics. What do we hear from the regular media about her so called charitable foundation. It is nothing but a vacation fund for her and all her cohorts. The alphabet channels spent more time on the gorilla story than on Hillary's corruption. We have a Traitor in office and a replacement on the ballot. But who cares about that. What's more important is the fact that Trump took a few days too long to give a million dollars to the Veterans that he never had to give to begin with. How would you like to get a million dollars 10 days late??
Hell all Sharpton is about three years late owing a couple million to the IRS. Nothing on that. The press deserve a lot more butt chewing than they got. Even Rush said it was about time.
Only sensible post in this topic...Its Donald are Hillary , unless she is indicted...you remind me of some one ask for a donation, you give them five and they ask for ten...
If Trump is just more of the same then why is it that the same old ones don't like him much and are doing their best to stop him?? Do you have a logical answer for that?
Don McManus
If Trump is just more of the same then why is it that the same old ones don't like him much and are doing their best to stop him?? Do you have a logical answer for that?
I don't see where anyone has said Trump is more of the same. I am addressing this specific case where his dishonesty is fairly obvious. He is very different than the normal politician, and brings a new dynamic to the process. He threatens the powers that be because they do not believe he will follow their view of what the GOP should be, among other things, including the significant point that they do not believe they can control him. This is both positive and negative.
This issue here as I see it, is his response when asked about something where rational people would think he was progressing quite well. His reaction of deception and false accusation should concern those same rational people, don't you think?
Asking for a logical response as to how the GOP party hacks respond to a person is a fairly simple. Look to the money and look to the power. If a person appears to threaten either, he will be dismissed, or worse. I do not see how it applies in this case.
Can you bring yourself to a position to openly and candidly examine Trump at all levels? If a people excuse any excess for the sake of victory over an opponent, we have a problem. All politicians must be held as much as is possible to a high standard of honesty and integrity, and I would hope all agree that when this standard is not met that they will be called upon it and it would be discussed. This should be true regardless of whether that candidate is more or less honest than his opponent.
Brad Steele
Can we have a rational discussion about Trump's Press Conference regarding his money raising for Vets?
I hope so.
I watched the beginning of the Press Conference. I turned it off when he started the personal insults. While journalists in general deserve a great deal of criticism, upon further examination, Trump's verbal assault is worth discussion.
While it is true that most, if not all of the $ 5.6 million he helped raise has been distributed to various Veteran's groups, it is also true that 40% of it was distributed after the Washington Post ran the story questioning why more of the money had not been distributed.
So Trump is either afraid of or too embarrassed by his actions to face Megyn Kelly in a debate in Iowa. That is fine.
He holds a rally to raise money for Veterans. This is great.
He distributes 60% of the $ 5.6 million raised within four months. This is very good, given that the charities had to be vetted.
A negative newspaper article is written about monies that have not been distributed, and then we see the following:
1. A mad dash to distribute over $ 2 million within a matter of a couple of days.
2. The announcement of a Press Conference on the subject some 6 days later.
3. The first question of the Press Conference is about the money, and Mr. Trump cites the figures and lists the charities receiving the money, and many times states that all $ 5.6 million has been distributed. So far so good.
4. He then goes off the rails and lashes out at the lying sleazy media who purposefully distorted the story so as to make Trump look bad. Trump did not once mention that he did, in fact direct that the 40% balance of the money was sent out following the story.
So:
1. Was Trump's visible and visceral anger at the press justified or justifiable?
2. Did Trump willfully distort the record and mislead the viewers with his reporting of the monies?
3. Given the facts of the case, was the attack on the press something that an open and honest person would do; a person with the temperament we should expect of a President?
Same $ questions were asked about the Wounded Warrior Project .....Not enough of the money distributed and questionable spending such as the trip to Israel for a few disabled U.S. Jewish vets. Seems the trip and their stay in Israel was paid for so that they could bike around Israel with Israeli vets.
Trump does not have the temperament to be POTUS, his reaction to facts shows this. The press is going to make him react out of anger every chance they get. His reaction to the Trump University law suit judge is another example of his piss poor response to something he does not like.
Trump does not have the "take your deserved lumps, learn from it and move on" attitude. He sets out to destroy those that displease him. He is not a humble man but he does have little hands.
I ain't voting for the man. [:D]
The founders had huge problems with each others positions when framing the Constitution, they argued points with out attacking each other as men. If they had acted like Trump does our nation would have never been founded.
Not very familiar with the war of insults between the Federalists and Anti Federalists, are you?
The war between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is one of the ugliest in American history and makes Clinton and Trump look like a disney movie by comparison.
quote:Originally posted by bpost
The founders had huge problems with each others positions when framing the Constitution, they argued points with out attacking each other as men. If they had acted like Trump does our nation would have never been founded.
Not very familiar with the war of insults between the Federalists and Anti Federalists, are you?
The war between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams is one of the ugliest in American history and makes Clinton and Trump look like a disney movie by comparison.
Jefferson was always ahead of his time. I believe he or his surrogates defined Adams as our first trans-gender candidate.
Brad Steele
Who said the founding fathers never made it personal? Hamilton Killed Burr. Better read up on Adams and Jefferson's campaign fight. Jefferson said that the best we could do was to pray earnestly for a speedy death for Patrick Henry.
"Hamilton killed Burr"?[:0]
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
Who said the founding fathers never made it personal? Hamilton Killed Burr. Better read up on Adams and Jefferson's campaign fight. Jefferson said that the best we could do was to pray earnestly for a speedy death for Patrick Henry.
"Hamilton killed Burr"?[:0]
Haven't you been reading up?[:)]
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by droptop
Opinion is that after 50 + years of watching the governments (Federal/State/local} be so absolutely incompetent and WASTEFUL of tax payer money that anything different would be impossible and things did continue to get worse.
Someone who raises money, properly verifies the recipients are qualified, distributes the money and does not charge any kind of a fee,, gets my vote.
Personally the press have been a bunch of "ly'n" dickweeds for at least 40 years and it's about time someone brought it to their attention,, up close and personal.
PS: Thanks for the link. Shame the cameras didn't show the expressions on the questioners faces.
So, to the point, you do not believe that Trump distorted the record or mislead the audience in any way, and was perfectly justified in how he responded to the questions.
You are also comfortable with your President behaving in this manner. YES
Did I get this correct? YES
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you did not directly address the questions posed.
Upon first reading the subject of this post my thought was WHAT? is this for real?
Anyway: Post by dads3040 echos my thoughts exactly. Post starts with: I think that any discussion of the donations and distributions needs some context.
Charities are presumably good but the ENTIRE group is 50+ percent DISHONEST "Sob story authors" and some pay ALMOST NOTHING of the amounts collect to the beneficiaries,, or should I say "SUPPOSED BENEFICIARIES" ? because the VAST MAJORITY of the money goes to the Charity Origination.
ONE OF MANY lists of the worst of the bunch. Based on this,, maybe TRUMP WOULD BE AT THE TOP?
[img]http://websoft2000.com/gb/worst charitys.png[/img]
AFL-CIO police associations,, ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT,, what's the reason for that? error, misreading? false list?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by droptop
Opinion is that after 50 + years of watching the governments (Federal/State/local} be so absolutely incompetent and WASTEFUL of tax payer money that anything different would be impossible and things did continue to get worse.
Someone who raises money, properly verifies the recipients are qualified, distributes the money and does not charge any kind of a fee,, gets my vote.
Personally the press have been a bunch of "ly'n" dickweeds for at least 40 years and it's about time someone brought it to their attention,, up close and personal.
PS: Thanks for the link. Shame the cameras didn't show the expressions on the questioners faces.
So, to the point, you do not believe that Trump distorted the record or mislead the audience in any way, and was perfectly justified in how he responded to the questions.
You are also comfortable with your President behaving in this manner. YES
Did I get this correct? YES
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you did not directly address the questions posed.
Upon first reading the subject of this post my thought was WHAT? is this for real?
Anyway: Post by dads3040 echos my thoughts exactly. Post starts with: I think that any discussion of the donations and distributions needs some context.
Charities are presumably good but the ENTIRE group is 50+ percent DISHONEST "Sob story authors" and some pay ALMOST NOTHING of the amounts collect to the beneficiaries,, or should I say "SUPPOSED BENEFICIARIES" ? because the VAST MAJORITY of the money goes to the Charity Origination.
ONE OF MANY lists of the worst of the bunch. Based on this,, maybe TRUMP WOULD BE AT THE TOP?
[img]http://websoft2000.com/gb/worst charitys.png[/img]
AFL-CIO police associations,, ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT,, what's the reason for that? error, misreading? false list?
Am I reading this list wrong.
My take is A=Amount raised by solicitors (Telemarketers, organizers, ad agencies) , B=amount paid to solicitors (Telemarketers, organizers, ad agencies).Thus A-B= cash available.
#1 $137.9 M - $115.9 M = $22M, 2.5% of $22M= $550,000 spent on direct cash aid. Now there could be a lot more to this than cash aid.