Can we have a rational discussion about Trump's
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?
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
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.0 -
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.
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]0 -
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.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
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.0 -
Trump & rational discussion are not words that belong in the same sentence. 0 -
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. 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]0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
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?[:)]0 -
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?0 -
quote:Originally posted by droptop
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.0 -
Read it wrong? If you are, than so am I.
Nonprofit Applications Given a Free Pass by IRS
Even some very large, notable nonprofits have been known to engage in unsavory and outright unethical behaviors, managing to pull the wool over the public eye. Ken Stern, author of With Charity for All and former CEO of NPR, is very critical of many large charitable organizations, including the American Red Cross and D.A.R.E.
Some nonprofits excel in collecting donations but fail miserably when it comes to distribution, such as the American Red Cross's bungled 9/11 Fund3 and disastrous deployment of aid and personnel in response to the 9/11 disaster. In an LA Times article, Ken Stern wrote the following4:
"In brief, its response was, well, disastrous. Material and personnel were deployed to the wrong places. Logistics broke down so badly that the organization was unable to get supplies, volunteers, food or cots for first responders quickly to the Pentagon - which was all of 2 miles from its national headquarters and emergency response center."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/07/worst-us-charities.aspx
The above page has some "favorites" but who knows. maybe the page announcing the WORST,, is,, what, no better than 50% "honest".0 -
Are you deliberately deflecting or genuinely don't understand the question?
Trump seems to have been doing just fine in the distribution as I have now stated for at least the third time. The problem as I see it, is that when questioned about it on the 22nd, he went into cover up mode and dumped the remaining 40%, including his contribution for apparently the specific purpose of generating a false narrative the questions and story were yellow journalism.
Proper vetting is important and takes time, and that was the proper and honest answer. He chose to deceive and throw a temper tantrum. I would think that would bother The supporters of a man who 'tells it like it is'.
Again: It is not about the donations and schedule. It is about deception.0 -
the press is looking for any thing to make trump look bad, he could have handled it better. and maybe he should have hired a few of bill and hillerys accountents as they are good at hiding vast amounts of given money and giving it to them selfs and loans to cronies. now where is the press on that? among the missing. mr myopic. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by eastbank
the press is looking for any thing to make trump look bad, he could have handled it better. and maybe he should have hired a few of bill and hillerys accountents as they are good at hiding vast amounts of given money and giving it to them selfs and loans to cronies. now where is the press on that? among the missing. mr myopic.
I won't even bother with projection of his own superficiality regarding the judge in the Trump University case.
'Sure he lied. Sure he deceived. Of course he created a straw man with which to lash out at the press. He probably could have handled it better by being honest, but what the hell, he's my boy and he better than Hillary, so I don't care.'
When do his supporters even begin to think about holding him accountable for his actions? It will be way too late after he is elected; just look at what we have now.0 -
Don, it looks like the Trump supporters either do not understand what happened (even after you explained it to them), do not care, or endorse what he did. It's hard to parse. The problem is, all three are just about equally disconcerting. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Don, it looks like the Trump supporters either do not understand what happened (even after you explained it to them), do not care, or endorse what he did. It's hard to parse. The problem is, all three are just about equally disconcerting.
I am afraid Trump has created a cult of personality not unlike Obama was able do where virtually anything he says or does will be either defended or dismissed as irrelevant.
It will not serve our country if it continues.0 -
i have become a one issue voter, and as i know for sure what hillery will try to do with the second admendment(she,s not shy about telling every one). i see no other way but to vote for trump, if you love firearms for hunting,self defence,collecting or match shooting. mr myopic. 0 -
Whats the problem with Trumps vet donations?....nothing...He gave his money as well as the solicitations....How much have you gave?....How much has Hillary gave?.....[:o)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
Don, it looks like the Trump supporters either do not understand what happened (even after you explained it to them), do not care, or endorse what he did. It's hard to parse. The problem is, all three are just about equally disconcerting.
I am afraid Trump has created a cult of personality not unlike Obama was able do where virtually anything he says or does will be either defended or dismissed as irrelevant.
It will not serve our country if it continues.
I think he is good for the country , not a milk toast like the other 16....Trump won...support him, are lose your gun rights...all the rhetoric about who he is and who he insults, "how he aint Presidential etc" who cares , we have what we have...are you can stay home ,like you did the last time and elect The Bitch from Hell!0 -
The only thing that Trump actually said that bothered me a lot was what he said about McCain. I don't think he knew the whole story about McCain.
A lot of the things attributed to him he never said at all or they have been exaggerated or revised to sound bad. The people against him are very good at spinning his words. Can anybody tell me exactly what he actually said about the judge lately. I know but I want to see if anybody really remembers after al the spin.
In reality this is a fight to retain the old establishment. The ones that have been lying and screwing us for years.
Us Trump voters understand. Maybe it's you others who don't. That's not possible is it???0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
The only thing that Trump actually said that bothered me a lot was what he said about McCain. I don't think he knew the whole story about McCain.
A lot of the things attributed to him he never said at all or they have been exaggerated or revised to sound bad. The people against him are very good at spinning his words. Can anybody tell me exactly what he actually said about the judge lately. I know but I want to see if anybody really remembers after al the spin.
In reality this is a fight to retain the old establishment. The ones that have been lying and screwing us for years.
Us Trump voters understand. Maybe it's you others who don't. That's not possible is it???
He stated basically that the judge has been unfair to him, and that there is an inherent conflict of interest because the judge is Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-mexican-judge-1465167405?mod=trending_now_
On the surface, not really much of an inflammatory statement, and I frankly don't see it as racist. What I see is a man who is projecting his shallowness and depth upon the judge in this case. Effectively, Trump is accusing the judge of being as shallow and superficial as Trump knows himself to be, so obviously with his Mexican heritage, he is incapable of being objective when overseeing Trump's case.
If the judge was truly being unfair, a motion to have him removed would have been filed by Trump's lawyers. We can be fairly certain that Trump's lawyers do not believe the judge to be biased against Trump because no such motion has been filed.
Some are saying Trump is racist based upon his statement. I don't see it myself. All I see is a self-absorbed, thin skinned and superficial little man who projects those same character flaws upon anyone who he believes has slighted him.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
The only thing that Trump actually said that bothered me a lot was what he said about McCain. I don't think he knew the whole story about McCain.
A lot of the things attributed to him he never said at all or they have been exaggerated or revised to sound bad. The people against him are very good at spinning his words. Can anybody tell me exactly what he actually said about the judge lately. I know but I want to see if anybody really remembers after al the spin.
In reality this is a fight to retain the old establishment. The ones that have been lying and screwing us for years.
Us Trump voters understand. Maybe it's you others who don't. That's not possible is it???
He stated basically that the judge has been unfair to him, and that there is an inherent conflict of interest because the judge is Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-mexican-judge-1465167405?mod=trending_now_
On the surface, not really much of an inflammatory statement, and I frankly don't see it as racist. What I see is a man who is projecting his shallowness and depth upon the judge in this case. Effectively, Trump is accusing the judge of being as shallow and superficial as Trump knows himself to be, so obviously with his Mexican heritage, he is incapable of being objective when overseeing Trump's case.
If the judge was truly being unfair, a motion to have him removed would have been filed by Trump's lawyers. We can be fairly certain that Trump's lawyers do not believe the judge to be biased against Trump because no such motion has been filed.
Some are saying Trump is racist based upon his statement. I don't see it myself. All I see is a self-absorbed, thin skinned and superficial little man who projects those same character flaws upon anyone who he believes has slighted him.
Of course, Trump's remarks since is that the earlier statements have nothing to do with bias against Mexicans. He specifically doesn't want a Mexican judge for no other reason than that he is Mexican and it has nothing to do with bias against Mexicans?0 -
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
Whats the problem with Trumps vet donations?....nothing...He gave his money as well as the solicitations....How much have you gave?....How much has Hillary gave?.....[:o)]
Billary and Bills foundation gave: $70,000 U.S.D. over several years.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-donated-70000-veterans/
Doubt if any money was personal.0 -
70,000, chump change for the crooked duo. the coat she wore the other night cost 12,000 while talking about what she was going to do for the poor class that bill and her helped cause. mr myopic. 0 -
Cut the partisan BS.
NO KILLARY PERIOD. If ya believe different ya probably shouldn't be on GunBroker.
Maybe moveon.org would suit ya better. Go "entertain" Soros with those genius lips0 -
quote:Originally posted by mjrfd99
Cut the partisan BS.
NO KILLARY PERIOD. If ya believe different ya probably shouldn't be on GunBroker.
Maybe moveon.org would suit ya better. Go "entertain" Soros with those genius lips
This makes my brain hurt.
I'm guessing you've never had that problem.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by mjrfd99
Cut the partisan BS.
NO KILLARY PERIOD. If ya believe different ya probably shouldn't be on GunBroker.
Maybe moveon.org would suit ya better. Go "entertain" Soros with those genius lips
This makes my brain hurt.
I'm guessing you've never had that problem.
Zing!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by mjrfd99
Cut the partisan BS.
NO KILLARY PERIOD. If ya believe different ya probably shouldn't be on GunBroker.
Maybe moveon.org would suit ya better. Go "entertain" Soros with those genius lipsThis makes my brain hurt.
I'm guessing you've never had that problem.At first I thought DWS was responding to the post, had to look a second time! [:D]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
58 comments