A Trump salute to veterans

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-12-2016, 01:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If he raised anything anything; it's a positive. 

Raising money for veterans is a positive. I give him credit for that. 

But, he held the fund raiser to benefit himself because he was boycotting a Fox News debate. 

He lied about the amount of money he raised. 

He lied about contributing himself. 

He lied about distributing the money. 

He complained the Washington Post treated him unfairly when they truthfully reported the donations hadn't been distributed over 4 months later and he hadn't contributed a single dime himself despite claims to the contrary. 

At least one of the veteran charities which received money from the fundraiser is a scam with only approximately 20% of donations actually going towards helping veterans. Every dollar spent on these scams takes a dollar away from a legitimate charity and makes people less likely to donate in the future. Matter of fact, I received a phone call from one of these scams within the last two weeks. I felt like telling the person he should be ashamed of himself, but it would have been wasted breath because that person was already involved n the scam and didn't give a shit. 

Trump claims he will help veterans, but based upon his track record those claims are for his benefit, not veterans, and he will only (kinda) keep his word after it is revealed he hasn't kept his word. 

I see no reason to believe this leopard will change his spots. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

We have all heard the idiom, "Put your money where your mouth is."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilycanal/2016/11/11/trust-trump-to-take-care-of-veterans-you-wont-like-his-giving-record/#541d7293e655

According to Forbes, between 2009-2014 the Trump Foundation spent more on lawsuits than veteran charities. Additionally, the Trump Foundation donated more to over 300 charities than to veteran charities. So on the list of charities close to Trump's heart, veterans are 300 and something.

I'll credit this as #2 on the list of "a lot" of things Trump has done for veterans. Is there even a third?

[xxlt]

(11-11-2016, 11:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, using things Trump actually said to formulate an opinion about him isn't allowed. You can't take things he says seriously, unless it's something you agree with.

Wow! That pretty much sums it up.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 05:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Raising money for veterans is a positive. I give him credit for that. 

But, he held the fund raiser to benefit himself because he was boycotting a Fox News debate. 

He lied about the amount of money he raised. 

He lied about contributing himself. 

He lied about distributing the money. 

He complained the Washington Post treated him unfairly when they truthfully reported the donations hadn't been distributed over 4 months later and he hadn't contributed a single dime himself despite claims to the contrary. 

At least one of the veteran charities which received money from the fundraiser is a scam with only approximately 20% of donations actually going towards helping veterans. Every dollar spent on these scams takes a dollar away from a legitimate charity and makes people less likely to donate in the future. Matter of fact, I received a phone call from one of these scams within the last two weeks. I felt like telling the person he should be ashamed of himself, but it would have been wasted breath because that person was already involved n the scam and didn't give a shit. 

Trump claims he will help veterans, but based upon his track record those claims are for his benefit, not veterans, and he will only (kinda) keep his word after it is revealed he hasn't kept his word. 

I see no reason to believe this leopard will change his spots. 

Excellent points. I believe that the "veterans group" Trump raised money for had, at the time, only one member as well. The whole show was set up not to help veterans but so everyone would be talking about how Trump raised money for veterans.  Reality show by a promoter.

One of things I have found so disturbing about this election cycle is the casual way people now separate evaluation from any factual grounding and personal accountability.

Trump says things again and again that are false and offensive to people, and when he is called on it by the press and fact checkers, Trumpsters accuse THEM of bias and negativity--as if Trump himself were not really the cause of his own negative evaluations; there are just people out there who don't have anything positive to say. 

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 02:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The stuff with John McCain was typical Trump shit talking.  He's a man who has had no need of a filter most, if not all, of his life and he says whatever he thinks will denigrate his opponent the most.  Point being, he's attacking the person, not veterans as a whole.  Don't confuse my pointing this out as excusing these comments, there is no excuse for them.  Lastly, in regards to the Khan family.  You can't use their son's death for political gain, which is exactly why they were on stage at the DNC, and then claim immunity from counterattack.  Trump's response was in poor taste but using them for political gain isn't much better.

Trump wasn't attacking veterans as a whole, just the incompetents who let themselves become POWs. I think we can all agree Trump feels very positively towards military members who avoided capture. McCain enduring beatings and torture to protect fellow prisoners and sending others home before himself doesn't excuse failure. Maybe he could not have avoided being shot out of the sky, but had he attended Trump's military school he'd surely have had the requisite can do "militaristic" mindset to evade capture.  

The Khan's were on stage at the DNC because their Muslim son died fighting for the US and the Republican nominee had called for a ban all muslims entering the US, among other negative comments. The "political gain" they desired was recognition Muslims are Americans and die for the US too. And their son was both a muslim and an American hero. Not in poor taste to make that point before the nation. Many, myself included, think gold star parents should be immune from counter attack. Which of the first 44 presidents would disagree? Now we have one, the nation's new premiere role model, who doesn't.  Someone hits you, you have to hit back hard. You just have to, even a grieving gold star mother who never said a word, whether it serves your long term goals or not.

[McC]

I say give it a year and see how he stands on veterans. Or, use the liberal model, jump to conclusions on a presidency that hasn't even happened yet and go burn shit in the streets.

The liberals real fear is that he will be a great president. Their love is not for peace but for chaos, not for unity but for divisiveness. Their words are empty because their actions are speaking so much louder. They are outed by their own disgusting behavior.

And Trump's actions will speak so much louder than his words on this subject and on all the others where liberals have spent so much time and energy attempting to do what they do best--instill fear where there is nothing to fear.

The misogynist had a woman running his campaign. The racist's first appointee is a black man. Imagine that. One by one, the liberals' hollow rhetoric will be debunked.

[GMDino]

(11-13-2016, 10:05 AM)McC Wrote: I say give it a year and see how he stands on veterans.  Or, use the liberal model, jump to conclusions on a presidency that hasn't even happened yet and go burn shit in the streets.

The liberals real fear is that he will be a great president.   Their love is not for peace but for chaos, not for unity but for divisiveness.    Their words are empty because their actions are speaking so much louder.  They are outed by their own disgusting behavior.

And Trump's actions will speak so much louder than his words on this subject and on all the others where liberals have spent so much time and energy attempting to do what they do best--instill fear where there is nothing to fear.

The misogynist had a woman running his campaign.  The racist's first appointee is a black man.  Imagine that.  One by one, the liberals' hollow rhetoric will be debunked.

I'll assume when you say "liberals" you mean the rebelrousers on the fringe.

As to THIS liberal:  If the country is better off in four years I will gladly say I was wrong.  I wanted what was best for the country...not just for me.    Unlike those who said they would work against Obama to make him a one term president or those who "hoped he would fail" I want him to succeed.  I just did not beleive he COULD which is why I campaigned against him.

His actions and his words for the last 70 years have shown him to be a wildcard at best and a loose cannon at worst.  


Oh, and the woman running his campaign was his third choice. So let's not give him too much credit for being a forward thinker.

And his first appointee was Myron Ebell to lead the transition team.


The appointment of Ken Blackwell though, well, let's just say it also goes against another one of Trump's campaign promises:


http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/liberals-insist-donald-trumps-racist-trumps-new-appointment-liberals-heads-exploding/

Quote:Trump’s first move on domestic policy is to find the most conservative political insider with an impressive resume he could find. And he found him.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

McC, Trump is 70 years old and the list of "a lot" of things he has done for veterans ends at #2. But, I need to give it another year before reaching a conclusion?  I can't reach a conclusion based upon the previous 70 years?  I need to wait 71 years to conclude a reality TV star says shit to get attention?

[GMDino]

(11-13-2016, 12:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: McC, Trump is 70 years old and the list of "a lot" of things he has done for veterans ends at #2. But, I need to give it another year before reaching a conclusion?  I can't reach a conclusion based upon the previous 70 years?  I need to wait 71 years to conclude a reality TV star says shit to get attention?

Also, other that a tweet, it doesn't look like he made an effort to do anything else for Veterans day.

Maybe he was tired?

Those 90 minute meetings can take a lot out of a man.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2016, 06:19 AM)Dill Wrote: Trump wasn't attacking veterans as a whole, just the incompetents who let themselves become POWs. I think we can all agree Trump feels very positively towards military members who avoided capture. McCain enduring beatings and torture to protect fellow prisoners and sending others home before himself doesn't excuse failure. Maybe he could not have avoided being shot out of the sky, but had he attended Trump's military school he'd surely have had the requisite can do "militaristic" mindset to evade capture.

I'm honestly puzzled that you felt the need to type this part of your response.  I didn't endorse or condone the comments Trump made about McCain, just the opposite.  Catharsis on your part?

Quote:The Khan's were on stage at the DNC because their Muslim son died fighting for the US and the Republican nominee had called for a ban all muslims entering the US, among other negative comments. The "political gain" they desired was recognition Muslims are Americans and die for the US too. And their son was both a muslim and an American hero. Not in poor taste to make that point before the nation. Many, myself included, think gold star parents should be immune from counter attack. Which of the first 44 presidents would disagree? Now we have one, the nation's new premiere role model, who doesn't.  Someone hits you, you have to hit back hard. You just have to, even a grieving gold star mother who never said a word, whether it serves your long term goals or not.

Hillary used them for political gain.  As far as immunity from attack, I'm just not quite sure you'd have the same opinion if Trump brought out a gold star family that backed a ban on muslims entering the country because their child was killed by one in Afghanistan.  When you take your points and flip them you see how absurd they are.  Your concern is wholly partisan.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-13-2016, 12:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Also, other that a tweet, it doesn't look like he made an effort to do anything else for Veterans day.

Maybe he was tired?

Those 90 minute meetings can take a lot out of a man.

I would blame his advisors as much as him for failing to make an appearance at a Veteran's Day event a priority in his schedule. I'm willing to give him a pass if he was gainfully employed selecting his staff as President-elect. But, actions speak louder than tweets. 

[Dill]

(11-13-2016, 02:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm honestly puzzled that you felt the need to type this part of your response.  I didn't endorse or condone the comments Trump made about McCain, just the opposite.  Catharsis on your part?

Hillary used them for political gain.  As far as immunity from attack, I'm just not quite sure you'd have the same opinion if Trump brought out a gold star family that backed a ban on muslims entering the country because their child was killed by one in Afghanistan.  When you take your points and flip them you see how absurd they are.  Your concern is wholly partisan.

We don't have a big disagreement on Trump's remarks about veterans. I would only say that in phrasing his remarks, he was not just talking about McCain but about all POWs. And I apologize if that post sounded snippy, SSF. I don't have a big beef with you at all.

As for my next comments, no "partisan" absurdity there. You have only assumed that I wouldn't have the same opinion if Trump brought out a gold star family, etc.  Were I the Democratic nominee, or speaking for Hillary's campaign in any official capacity, you may be quite sure I would not attack gold star parents who spoke out on behalf of Trump. If a Democratic official did so, I would be critical of that.

In point of fact Trump did something along these lines when he brought out relatives of people killed by undocumented immigrants to one of his rallies to whip up anti-immigrant hate. However twisted I thought this move, I would not have criticized the bereaved.

 Everyone who speaks at political convention does so for the political gain of their side. That is the point of having convention speakers. Hillary didn't 'use' anyone if the Khan's wanted to come forward and make their case, which they did and still do. We may continue to disagree about that.

[Dill]

(11-13-2016, 10:05 AM)McC Wrote: And Trump's actions will speak so much louder than his words on this subject and on all the others where liberals have spent so much time and energy attempting to do what they do best--instill fear where there is nothing to fear.

The misogynist had a woman running his campaign.  The racist's first appointee is a black man.  Imagine that.  One by one, the liberals' hollow rhetoric will be debunked.

I think I get your point McC.

If Trump publicly calls women fat pigs and brags of groping them, and says wives shouldn't work, those are just words. But if he hires a woman, that is an action that speaks louder than words. He clearly can not be misogynist.

Same on the race issue. In some places around the US a certain high school demographic has celebrated the Trump campaign by chanting "build the wall" and "white power," while the Klan even now prepares a victory parade in North Carolina, insisting they helped him win. They have all "heard" something in Trump's words that made them feel empowered and encouraged to behave this way.   But because Trump has appointed a minor black official to his transition team, we can feel reassured that his young supporters will now hear something else.

The concern some liberals might still have, though, hangs on the relation between Trump's words and his actions on public policy.

Will he ask us to put all the divisiveness and hate aside and unite, not as Republicans and Democrats but as Americans one and all, to build the wall, deport families, and ban Muslims?

Perhaps you are right McC, and liberal fears based on Trump's words are baseless. His campaign promises give no real indication of how he will act on policy. Agree or disagree, the vote is over and now we can only wait and see.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2016, 04:44 PM)Dill Wrote: We don't have a big disagreement on Trump's remarks about veterans. I would only say that in phrasing his remarks, he was not just talking about McCain but about all POWs.  And I apologize if that post sounded snippy, SSF. I don't have a big beef with you at all.

No worries, maybe I misunderstood your intent.

Quote:As for my next comments, no "partisan" absurdity there. You have only assumed  that I wouldn't have the same opinion if Trump brought out a gold star family, etc.  Were I the Democratic nominee, or speaking for Hillary's campaign in any official capacity, you may be quite sure I would not attack gold star parents who spoke out on behalf of Trump. If a Democratic official did so, I would be critical of that.

Critical sure, I have zero issue with being critical of the attacks.  I have a big issue with saying that someone using their dead child for political capital is immune to repudiation.  The minute you use your loss for political gain it is subject to counter argument and you have no one to blame but yourself for causing it.  (yourself being a gold star family in this scenario)

Quote:In point of fact Trump did something along these lines when he brought out relatives of people killed by undocumented immigrants to one of his rallies to whip up anti-immigrant hate. However twisted I thought this move, I would not have criticized the bereaved.

He did and it was largely ignored.  You may not have criticized the bereaved, and I'll absolutely take you at your word and retract my accusation of hypocrisy.  But plenty of people did attack them from the left and it was not talked about at all.

Quote: Everyone who speaks at political convention does so for the political gain of their side. That is the point of having convention speakers. Hillary didn't 'use' anyone if the Khan's wanted to come forward and make their case, which they did and still do. We may continue to disagree about that.

Eh, I get that they wanted to speak, but using them, or Mike Brown's mom, is really just making political hay from their loss.  Allowing this opens you up to political attack, regardless of your leanings.  Know this beforehand and don't claim immunity.  I get that you feel otherwise and I can respect that.  I personally don't think anyone has the right to wade into a political fistfight with impunity.