The whole medical records thing has been such a laugh. Trump tweets that both should release their records, then he says to a reporter that he'll release his first (which he doesn't), schedules to go on Dr Oz saying they'll release his records there, then the campaign says he won't release his records on the show, then he tapes the show and brings another letter, asks if he should release it, that he doesn't care, then gives it to Oz. And other than him taking cholesterol meds and baby aspirin looks fine.
I think the whole thing is to draw attention away from the issues the Newsweek article raises and the actual problems with Trump's charitable organization.
Also Trump visited Flint, goes to speak at a church and then starts to stump (the campaign had said that he was there to thank the people for their work in helping... Flintians?) and gets shut down by the pastor. "Mr. Trump, I invited you here to thank us for what we’ve done in Flint, not give a political speech," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...cized-clinton/
Now he's calling the pastor a "nervous mess" and he knew that something was up, he was set up... He says the audience was saying "let him speak" when actually the audience was heckling him and the pastor that he says set him up was the one who told the audience to let him speak, he as their guest and deserved honour.
Even in the smallest things Trump can't help but lie to make himself look the tiniest bit better.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Honest question as I haven't got a ton of background with either the Clinton or the Trump foundation. But is there much of a difference between what Trump is doing and what the Clintons are doing?
Both get massive external donations (foreign in Clinton's case) and don't seemingly do a whole lot of charity work with them.
The Clinton Foundation is a higher rated charity as far as direct contributions going to charity (and not overhead/admin) than the American Red Cross. The Trump Foundation is a holding company that accepts donations, then turns around and uses them to "donate" to charities so Trump doesn't have to give up any of his own cash. It's pretty ####ed up we even have to debate whether they are even close to the same thing. There's legit questions to have about the Clinton Foundation, but it's not a grifter operation, clearly. The Trump Foundation obviously is.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 09-15-2016 at 11:36 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Honest question as I haven't got a ton of background with either the Clinton or the Trump foundation. But is there much of a difference between what Trump is doing and what the Clintons are doing?
Both get massive external donations (foreign in Clinton's case) and don't seemingly do a whole lot of charity work with them.
Oh and BTW, I am biased in favour of the Clinton foundation. I spent 2 seconds googling Trump's charity ratings and didnt want to spend any more time on it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Izzle For This Useful Post:
Where is the scam exactly? I'm not defending the actions but I don't see any sort of scamming occurring. It seems unethical but it doesn't look like anyone is getting scammed.
Where is the scam exactly? I'm not defending the actions but I don't see any sort of scamming occurring. It seems unethical but it doesn't look like anyone is getting scammed.
Well, the lymphoma charity is giving him their business based on what they perceive to be donations he is giving them from his own pocket. Now, they're not out any money as they're still getting the donations, so nobody is actually being scammed out of money* but it is pretty dirty on his part.
*Unless Trump charges more for the rental of his facility than other places would.
Where is the scam exactly? I'm not defending the actions but I don't see any sort of scamming occurring. It seems unethical but it doesn't look like anyone is getting scammed.
He basically takes money from other people and donates it under his name, which in all likelihood means he is claiming the tax benefits from it as well. It's basically like using a charity to help pay your taxes.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The scam is laid out in the second last tweet: the Trump Foundation makes "donations" that is really other people's money, and that the charities then host events at Trump properties (like Mar-A-Lago), for which the charities pay the Trump Organization to use places like Mar-A-Lago (since Trump never lets anyone use his properties for free). I think scam is probably the wrong word, but it's deception if nothing else.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The scam is laid out in the second last tweet: the Trump Foundation makes "donations" that is really other people's money, and that the charities then host events at Trump properties (like Mar-A-Lago), for which the charities pay the Trump Organization to use places like Mar-A-Lago (since Trump never lets anyone use his properties for free). I think scam is probably the wrong word, but it's deception if nothing else.
The charities should be under scrutiny for that as well. I mean, even though they are still making some money from it, they are paying a lot of the "donations" back to Trump. They are active participants in the Trump shell game.
It's definitely dishonest.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Yeah, it's clever, if nothing else. The donated money goes where it was supposed to go, and Trump just inserts himself as a sort of goodwill middle-man. Straight-up hustlin'.
Trump University? That's fraud. Channelling Trump Foundation money to an attorney general investigating Trump U? That's fraud. But when you've got a million schemes on the go, isn't it at least impressive that 99% of them are able to somehow land in the category of 'unethical but not illegal'?
He basically takes money from other people and donates it under his name, which in all likelihood means he is claiming the tax benefits from it as well. It's basically like using a charity to help pay your taxes.
Someone can/will correct me if I am wrong because I don't necessarily know the status of the Trump Foundation but if it is set up as a private charitable foundation anyone making donations will receive a tax benefit. When the foundation makes donations it will also receive a tax benefit.
Yeah, it's clever, if nothing else. The donated money goes where it was supposed to go, and Trump just inserts himself as a sort of goodwill middle-man. Straight-up hustlin'.
Trump University? That's fraud. Channelling Trump Foundation money to an attorney general investigating Trump U? That's fraud. But when you've got a million schemes on the go, isn't it at least impressive that 99% of them are able to somehow land in the category of 'unethical but not illegal'?
I guess the questions are whether the Trump "charity" is actually a true charity where the people donating get tax credit for donating, and whether Trump is then claiming the same write off when he donates the same money in his name.
For example, if one of Trumps billionaire buddies gives money to the Trump charity and gets a tax write off, then Trump turns around and donates that same money and gets the same tax write-off, then the public is clearly being cheated out of the tax money they are entitled to.
If that is the case then it is clearly exploiting a charity and illegal.
Best case scenario is that it is dishonest and shady, which for Trump supporters meet the bar I guess.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Some of that is normal foundation stuff. When you hear about an athlete or celebrity donating millions of dollars to a cause, it rarely comes out of their pockets, but rather from a foundation set up in their name which gets money through donations or fundraising efforts.
However, most people who set those up also contribute to them regularly. When PK Subban's foundation pledges $10M to Children's Hospital, sure the vast majority of that money isn't coming from him, but a good chunk (I believe in the $1M range) is out of his pocket. Setting up a charitable foundation in your name and then not giving it a penny for years while using it to get business for your company is pretty sleazy. Particularly for someone who claims to be a billionaire.
Seems like it's yet another thing that is unethical, but not illegal. Par for the course with how most of the 1% operates. Push things as far as you can before breaking the law. Somehow I'm guessing Clinton isn't going to ever attack him over this.
What would be interesting to see is what he takes as charitable donations in that 12,000 page income tax filing. If he is claiming giving a that are on other people's money?
This article is useful in discussing some of the penalties that could be leveraged against Trump's foundation for any wrongdoing. It is interesting that basically the penalties are a slap on the wrist and it is easy to see why an organization/foundation would do such things. They don't really run the risk of losing their tax free status and the benefit outweighs the cost/risk.
Basically these charitable foundations are hugely complicated organizations that act as onshore tax shelters and are set up to benefit individuals primarily and other charities as a secondary objective.
Last edited by calgarygeologist; 09-15-2016 at 12:27 PM.
