Trump gives to charity after reporters start asking questions

[FillJackson]

In January Trump skipped a GOP debate and to cover for that he held a fundraiser for veterans.

He said that he gave a million dollars and all together 6 million was raised. The Washington Post looked into it. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-said-he-raised-6-million-for-vets-now-his-campaign-says-it-was-less/2016/05/20/871127a8-1d1f-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html)


[QUOTE]In the days after the fundraiser, Trump repeated the $6 million figure in TV appearances and at Iowa rallies.

[UK2K]

Donald donating to charity...

Hillary accepting $100 million dollar donations from people who capture our sailors, parade them around, and then make funny YouTube videos about it.

What's your point?

[FillJackson]

Donald donating to charity...

Hillary accepting $100 million dollar donations from people who capture our sailors, parade them around, and then make funny YouTube videos about it.

What's your point?Provide your soon to be discredited evidence.

[9erempiree]

What was this thread about again?

He said he gave a million and he gave a million.:confusedshrug:

Now people are complaining that someone didn't get their money? That is some privileged shit right there. We want your money now.

[9erempiree]

Provide your soon to be discredited evidence.

Here is one.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

With that said, how can you support her? Just too many damn scandals in her political career. She cannot have that much baggage and hold the highest position in our country.

Lets not forget her husband's scandal and her being an enabler.

Trump made his billions building American buildings. Basically building our country.

Hillary has made her billions through gifts and donations. If you don't believe the amount to be that much then we can also accuse her of using her status in government for financial gains. Even former presidents don't get paid the amount she does for a speech and she is an acting civil servant.

[SexSymbol]

so are we knocking the guy right now for giving his money to charity?
Like there's ways to critique somebody, and this isn't it.

[9erempiree]

so are we knocking the guy right now for giving his money to charity?
Like there's ways to critique somebody, and this isn't it.

This is what happens when the candidate he dislikes is surging like crazy in the polls.

What he fail to realize is this is one of the greatest campaigns in history.

[FillJackson]

so are we knocking the guy right now for giving his money to charity?
Like there's ways to critique somebody, and this isn't it.
We are knocking the guy for clearly lying about having given money to charity.

He claimed he gave the money. He had not. This was not true.

When asked he wouldn't say who he gave to, even though it was not a secret and he milked it for publicity for months.

He claimed he had not just made a pledge, but that he completed the pledge and had sent the money. He had not. This was not true.

Reporters then looked into his claims and couldn't find any evidence to support them and he himself would not give any evidence to support them.

Hours after he spoke to the reporter, he scrambled to find a way to do what he said he had done.

This is like claiming to the principle you had completed your term paper and had handed to the teacher to be graded. Then after the principle tells you there's no record of a grade being submitted for your paper, you run home write the paper and shove it under the teacher's door.

This is the press following up on a politician's claims and finding the politician's claims are empty.

[Jameerthefear]

why post it here? donald lovers don't care lmao

[Dresta]

If you don't already have this job Kevin, you should apply:

https://jobs.lever.co/hillaryclinton/ef47e90f-2627-49d2-82c7-0f669bf66aa9

Or maybe this one:

https://jobs.lever.co/hillaryclinton/321b011b-c7cb-427c-adfc-a7cd6fc7e0a6


It's a big internet out there--and the way we talk to people is changing. The Digital Communications team is responsible for using the internet to make the campaign's day-to-day arguments. From holding Republicans accountable to defending against their latest attacks, the Digital Communications team works to get our message out online quickly and creatively.

Digital Communications moves a lot of content--through our "Briefing" properties, through our Hillary Clinton properties, through standalone products, and through influencers, allies, and surrogates. This job is hard. You have to write compelling, interesting content about sometimes-nuanced arguments in hours (or minutes). You're always on call for when the next opportunity to respond comes in. The news cycle never stops, and neither do you.

[FillJackson]

Here is one.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

Yeah,an editorial saying they "siphoned" money is a neutral source. The Daily Caller is not a neutral source. The Clinton Foundation does charity work. The idea that this shows "greed" is fodder for wingnuts, but

Also he was clearly referencing Iran who is not mentioned in your article.


Lets not forget her husband's scandal and her being an enabler. What's your position on Trump's infidelities? Do these qualify as a scandal?

The reason Clinton is going after Bill is he knows that he remains a popular figure and in particular a very good campaigner and he is trying to force a situation where they use Bill Clinton less.


Trump made his billions building American buildings. Basically building our country. This is ****ing hilarious.
Also Donald Trump has made a lot money working with Quatar, Dubai and various Saudis. When he was working out his bankruptcy with his creditors, he had his own Saudi prince. They called him "Trump's Prince" and he twice stepped in to buy Trump's assets/assume his debt in a deal that allowed the Trump Organization to stay afloat.


Hillary has made her billions through gifts and donations. If you don't believe the amount to be that much then we can also accuse her of using her status in government for financial gains. Even former presidents don't get paid the amount she does for a speech and she is an acting civil servant. More stupidity from you.
Hillary doesn't have billions.
Gifts and donations to the Clinton Foundation go to charitable work, like help fighting AIDS and Malaria.
Hillary is not an acting civil servant. Are you simply ****ing stupid?
What other former presidents are there? H. W. Bush and Carter are very old and not on the speaker circuit much.
That leaves Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. 2 People. One much more popular than the other. Clinton makes a bunch and Bush does OK. He would probably do much, much better if he wasn't viewed as a failure. Giuliani makes a bunch too on the speaker circuit, as does Colin Powell. They are also not an active civil servants. Even Sarah Palin was making 6 figures in her prime.

[Dresta]

You're always on call for when the next opportunity to respond comes in. The news cycle never stops, and neither do you.


. .

[FillJackson]

If you don't already have this job Kevin, you should apply:

https://jobs.lever.co/hillaryclinton/ef47e90f-2627-49d2-82c7-0f669bf66aa9

Or maybe this one:

https://jobs.lever.co/hillaryclinton/321b011b-c7cb-427c-adfc-a7cd6fc7e0a6
That Dresta's always looking out for me.

I got tripped up by this requirement
You need an existing network of people with outlets: writers, tweeters, influencers, and operatives. I supplied Jameer, 9er, Dadda, CavaliersFTW and stalkerforlife, but they didn't go for it.

[UK2K]

Provide your soon to be discredited evidence.

You can see all of the donors to her 'foundation' online... The interesting part is where these ME countries didn't donate their money:


– The contributions from the four Arab countries – between $15 million and $40 million – to the Clinton Foundation was much as five times what they donated to the much larger International Committee for the Red Cross between 2004 and 2013.

– The Washington-based Habitat for Humanity and England-based Save the Children International and Oxfam International reported no donations from the Persian Gulf governments, according to financial reports and spokespersons for the charities.

– Washington state-based World Vision International, the Georgia-based Task Force for Global Health and Virginia-based Project Hope have not sought nor received donations from Middle Eastern nations, according to their spokespersons.

– An eighth charity, Paris-based Doctors Without Borders, whose physicians have put their lives in peril to treat Ebola victims in West Africa, has raised $9.2 billion since 2003 but didn’t list any of the Middle Eastern countries among its top donors during that span.


These charitable nations... So charitable and giving... To nobody but Clinton. The irony.

But why? Why the Clinton foundation? Well...


While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

She's helping fund a global war. Hooray! You don't care though.

[FillJackson]

....
We sold arms to these countries before Clinton was Secretary of State and we sold them arms after Clinton was Secretary of State.

To claim we sold them arms because of a donation to Clinton's charity a fallacious argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) which takes the form

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.

It's not accurate to Sales Clinton approved these sales, because Foreign Military Sales are not unilaterally decided by the State Department and certainly not by the Secretary herself. Authority for these sales rests with the President. And there is a full bureaucracy and defined process that that FMS has to go through to be approved. The process ensures that the sales are consistent with US foreign policy. Sales are publically announced. Congress is notified at the beginning of proposed sales and they Congress has 30 days to object to the sales. For NATO countries and other allies it's 14 days. The practice has been to already discuss these sales with Congress prior to the announcement and the beginning of the 30 days, so that Congress's concerns were addressed earlier. Then there is an interagency review with State, Defense, Commerce, the CIA, etc. The Defense Department is responsible for implementing FMS. (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/c14021.htm) If there's something objectionable about these sales, Congress knew back when the sales were proposed.

So the A and B in this case is something like

The UAE donated to the Clinton Foundation, the US government approved an arms sale to the UAE.
Therefore the donation to the Clinton Foundation caused the US government to send arms to the UAE.

It's ludicrous. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State served existing US Foreign policy. If she was subverting US foreign policy and running her own back channel deals, this would be a genuine and huge scandal.

It would be the Iran-Contra of the 21st Century.

[FillJackson]

There was a 2011 sale to Bahrain that Congress objected to and the sale was prevented for 4 years until Bahrain made some movement on human rights.

[UK2K]

We sold arms to these countries before Clinton was Secretary of State and we sold them arms after Clinton was Secretary of State.

To claim we sold them arms because of a donation to Clinton's charity a fallacious argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) which takes the form

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.

It's not accurate to Sales Clinton approved these sales, because Foreign Military Sales are not unilaterally decided by the State Department and certainly not by the Secretary herself. Authority for these sales rests with the President. And there is a full bureaucracy and defined process that that FMS has to go through to be approved. The process ensures that the sales are consistent with US foreign policy. Sales are publically announced. Congress is notified at the beginning of proposed sales and they Congress has 30 days to object to the sales. For NATO countries and other allies it's 14 days. The practice has been to already discuss these sales with Congress prior to the announcement and the beginning of the 30 days, so that Congress's concerns were addressed earlier. Then there is an interagency review with State, Defense, Commerce, the CIA, etc. The Defense Department is responsible for implementing FMS. (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/c14021.htm) If there's something objectionable about these sales, Congress knew back when the sales were proposed.

So the A and B in this case is something like

The UAE donated to the Clinton Foundation, the US government approved an arms sale to the UAE.
Therefore the donation to the Clinton Foundation caused the US government to send arms to the UAE.

It's ludicrous. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State served existing US Foreign policy. If she was subverting US foreign policy and running her own back channel deals, this would be a genuine and huge scandal.

It would be the Iran-Contra of the 21st Century.

You skipped the bolded parts of my post I see...


The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

Don't care about your spin. There it is.

Now you can pretend like Clinton, as SOS, has zero pull on these type of matters if you want, that's your own prerogative.

[FillJackson]

What's with this stupidity?
You can see all of the donors to her 'foundation'

[UK2K]

What's with this stupidity?
Straight from her own emails...

[QUOTE]According to a new batch of emails released from the State Department, billionaire activist and [B]Clinton Foundation donor George Soros was

[FillJackson]

Straight from her own emails...

You don't think donors to her foundation didn't have her ear? Come on, you can't be that naive.



Do you think all of this is just a big coincidence?



But there's more... all just a misunderstanding, right? Shoddy paperwork I guess?



Come on now. You're sensible enough to realize that at least SOME of that money went into her pockets.
This isn't even moving goalposts, it's moving ****ing stadiums. While you're talking charitable donations, I'm going to talk about political contributions and act like they are the same thing.

Soros is mentioned in her emails (https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_DecWeb/O-2015-08637-DEC/DOC_0C05792956/C05792956.pdf) in the context of being MAJOR POLITICAL DONOR which he is in addition to being a philanthropist.

Even with that access, You still have no evidence of misconduct, no evidence of quid pro quo.

Hillary Victory fund? Not a charity by a long shot. Not in existence during her time as Secretary of State. Not money laundering whatsoever. Bernie also has the same deal with state parties.

It's basically a way to have to max out LEGAL contributions

The first $2,700 an individual goes to Hillary for America
The next $33,400 goes to the Democratic National Committee.
Anything above that is split evenly among the 32 state parties participating. This is where the real money is because the legal limit to a state party is $10,000

These agreements have been going on since at least 2004. The main thing that changed is the Conservatives on the Supreme Court overturned limits on contributions in 2014. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/political-parties-go-after-million-dollar-donors-in-wake-of-looser-rules/2015/09/19/728b43fe-5ede-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html)
[QUOTE]The dramatic pricing surge has been driven by a combination of two significant legal changes: the 2014 Supreme Court McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision that did away with a cap on how much a political donor could give in an election cycle, and an expansion of party fundraising tucked into an appropriations bill last December.

[Supreme Court ruling gives wealthy donors new ways to drive campaigns]

Together, they have eroded fundraising constraints set by the McCain-Feingold Act, a landmark 2002 campaign finance overhaul aimed at ending the parties

[FillJackson]

Most of those 2015 stories you link to are basically nothing and the uranium story is pure bullshit. The NY Times story on the uranium dela came straight from that the evidence free book (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/). The author of book went on several talk shows and had to admit he had ZERO evidence of wrongdoing regarding the uranium deal

Because, like the arms sales Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with approving the deal. It's approved by an interdepartmental group, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, and they all agreed that nothing in this deal affecting US security. The State Department official on this CFIUS board, mentioned that Clinton never got involved with this deal whatsoever
Also the "head" of this company sold his stake in the company years before Clinton became Secretary. The author's method was to put together a timeline and claim causation and therefore corruption and any time he was asked for evidence he had to admit he didn't have any.

failed to disclose 1,100 foreign donors
Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership is an independent Canadian charity based in Vancouver. It was formed so Canadian citizens (like Giustra himself) can claim charitable tax deductions. This Canadian Charity partners with the Clinton Foundation on specific charity projects. Canada basically puts up the money, declares the goal and asks the Clinton Foundation to carry out the work and then holds them accountability for the goal. The Clinton Foundation listed the Canadian charity as their donor (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors) just like they did for the donations from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the Elton John AIDS Foundation. They don't have to list who donated to Elton John's Foundation. Furthermore, the privacy laws of Vancouver, (http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_03063_01#section6) probhibit the Canadian charity from releasing their donor's personal information unless they gave their consent. After these news reports CGEP did ask their big donors if they gave consent to reveal their names and you can find that list here (http://cgepartnership.com/media/faqs/). Unsurprisingly, it's bunch of folks in the mining industry like Giustra. These names have been public for a year, I haven't heard any controversies. Same link will also show the charitable work CGEP does in Columbia and Peru.

[FillJackson]

This part is my favorite


Come on now. You're sensible enough to realize that at least SOME of that money went into her pockets.

And you basing this on what? Your own sense of corruption? Your deep down belief that she must be evil?

Do you know how corporate money works?





Also Trump lied about his charity contribution to veterans.

[FillJackson]

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

I think my earlier post on this got knacked.

You know how you get that big percentage? By ignoring the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation and saw their Weapons deals go down.

Brunei gave $250,000 and their arms sales went down 81%

Ireland gave $5 million dollars and their arms sales went down 26%

Jamiaca gave $50,000 and their arm sales went down 39%. Bahrain gave the same amount and their arm sales went up 187%!!!!

Morocco gave $2 million and their arms sales went up 1%

Why it's almost as if what they gave in charitable donations has no relation ship to the arms they could buy.

As someone said, if these are bribes, Clinton doesn't know how Bribes work.

[I.Malcolm]

Little Lyin Donald at it again. Shame he's cucked so many insecure white neckbeards into voting for him.

[Akrazotile]

Little Lyin Donald at it again. Shame he's cucked so many insecure white neckbeards into voting for him.


The thing is, most of the support for Trump isn't about Trump himself. It's a referendum against Republicans-As-Usual, being MADE by conservative voters. AKA, people who actually think for themselves and have the guts to question their own political leaders. The cheerleading for Trump personally is simply to rustle the jimmies of little ph@ggots like yourself.

Whereas Hillary/Obama supporters don't even seem to mind that those two are literally George Bush with a (D) in front of their names. Shillary voted for Iraq, Barry dropped more bombs than any President in history. They supported the bailout. They supported renewing the Patriot Act. They were against gay marriage during the same time span Bush was in office. They supported running up a rampant deficit. They extended Bush tax cuts in the middle of Barry's first term. These were the things Femocrats HATED MOST about Bush's term. But... when Barry came to office? Suddenly they cared more about health coverage mandates and transgender bathrooms. Intradasting...

Like little sheep in a pen.


As far as Bernie supporters... THose are just the cucks who got a shit hand in the genetic/social lottery, and think a guy handing out lofty promises can somehow change reality and cure their self-loathing and inadequacy. As if electing Bernie will suddenly make the world a non-competitive place, and all the losers who can't compete will suddenly have a place.

[I.Malcolm]

The thing is, most of the support for Trump isn't about Trump himself. It's a referendum against Republicans-As-Usual, being MADE by conservative voters. AKA, people who actually think for themselves and have the guts to question their own political leaders. The cheerleading for Trump personally is simply to rustle the jimmies of little ph@ggots like yourself.

Whereas Hillary/Obama supporters don't even seem to mind that those two are literally George Bush with a (D) in front of their names. Shillary voted for Iraq, Barry dropped more bombs than any President in history. They supported the bailout. They supported renewing the Patriot Act. They were against gay marriage during the same time span Bush was in office. They supported running up a rampant deficit. They extended Bush tax cuts in the middle of Barry's first term. These were the things Femocrats HATED MOST about Bush's term. But... when Barry came to office? Suddenly they cared more about health coverage mandates and transgender bathrooms. Intradasting...

Like little sheep in a pen.


As far as Bernie supporters... THose are just the cucks who got a shit hand in the genetic/social lottery, and think a guy handing out lofty promises can somehow change reality and cure their self-loathing and inadequacy. As if electing Bernie will suddenly make the world a non-competitive place, and all the losers who can't compete will suddenly have a place.

lol i remember my first election cycle.

admit it, you've been cucked by a billionaire (?) who guarantees that he'll only look out for himself. piss goes downhill my friend.

[Akrazotile]

lol i remember my first election cycle.

admit it, you've been cucked by a billionaire (?) who guarantees that he'll only look out for himself. piss goes downhill my friend.


Be specific, friend.

What do you think Trump would do while in office that his current supporters would not approve of?

And Im not even saying there couldnt be some things. Of course it's possible. Even likely. As it always is, with any candidate. But give me something specific, as you seem to feel so confident that it's more likely to happen with Donald J Trump than anyone else?

[I.Malcolm]

Be specific, friend.

What do you think Trump would do while in office that his current supporters would not approve of?

And Im not even saying there couldnt be some things. Of course it's possible. Even likely. As it always is, with any candidate. But give me something specific, as you seem to feel so confident that it's more likely to happen with Donald J Trump than anyone else?
once you've been cucked, you can't be un-cucked.