Yet another Trump thread

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:40 am

Bryn Mawr;1503811 wrote: Just not true!

If, in order to prevent that LEO being killed the police shoot a hundred innocent people because "they're afraid that they were about to be shot at" which appears to be the usual explanation then it is not acceptable.

IMHO, even one death of an innocent citizen is one too many - the police at paid to be at risk and they are paid to protect citizens, not shoot them.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Many, if not most, of those hundred people (as you say) are/were not totally innocent, or else the LEO likely would have not gotten involved with them in the first place. Every incident where a LEO interacts with a suspect, unfortunately these days has the potential to get violent. LEO's never know.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:12 pm

cars;1503813 wrote: You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Many, if not most, of those hundred people (as you say) are/were not totally innocent, or else the LEO likely would have not gotten involved with them in the first place. Every incident where a LEO interacts with a suspect, unfortunately these days has the potential to get violent. LEO's never know.

So making a left turn without signaling, or driving a car which has a burned out tail light, or sitting in a parking lot, reading a book, warrant a death sentence?

That is exactly what three of the victims of overzealous LEOs were doing that resulted in them being shot. and they were all three black.

White folks commit those sorts of heinous crimes, every day, and never realize just how close they must have come to being shot to death.

Statistics have demonstrated that police officers are more likely to stop, and ticket, and even shoot blacks driving cars. And the curious thing is that the race of the police officer seems less significant than the race of the "offender".

More curious: Most killers of LEOs are White and Hispanic.

Just some stuff I been thinking about.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:44 pm

Ban all Police Officers from entering the country & deport the rest. After all, they've murdered far more people in the U.S. than any Muslims have.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:03 pm

cars;1503808 wrote:

I would not be a happy camper (would you?) having to go to work every day thinking I may be a target! Has to be nerve racking, and make them somewhat jittery!I imagine knowing you might be targeted by anyone for any unfounded reason must be nerve racking and could make many people jittery.

It's not like LEOs woke up one morning to learn there are people and groups out there that don't respect them or the authority they represent. That's what they signed up for, to put themselves in harms way for the good of their communities. At least that's what I understand law enforcement sometimes entails.

Part of the problem, I think, is that law enforcement, like the the US has done internationally, has taken a proactive and more aggressive role in the past few decades in assuming crime or aggression against them and have gotten laws passed that make their jobs easier while eroding the rights of the common person. I also think that white/christian America has allowed this increase of authority for the police and erosion of common rights because they are afraid of multiculturalism in general. Whatever whites get caught up in this net of aggression must be white trash anyway.

That's what I think I've been witnessing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:52 pm

I found this graph.

How do i get the image on here? Hereâ€™s the summary: In general, the job of policing has become much safer since 1961. Here are a few interesting points.

More officers were feloniously killed in the 11 years between 1970 and 1980 (1228 deaths) than in the 21 years between 1993 and 2013 (1182 deaths).

The rate of felonious killings per 100,000 officers has declined from about 18 in 1989 to about 5 in 2013. It was over 3 times safer to be a police officer in 2013 than 26 years ago.

In the five years between 1971 and 1975, an average of 125 officers were feloniously killed per year. Most recently, between 2006 and 2010, the equivalent number is 50. Thatâ€™s more remarkable given that the number of officers employed has increased considerably since the â€˜70s. And I'd add to that last line in the quote that there's been a considerable increase in the number of people from other parts of the world in the US (legally and otherwise) and the population in general which makes the numbers even more remarkable, and, contrary to what many believe to be true.

Source

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:49 pm

LarsMac;1503816 wrote: So making a left turn without signaling, or driving a car which has a burned out tail light, or sitting in a parking lot, reading a book, warrant a death sentence?

That is exactly what three of the victims of overzealous LEOs were doing that resulted in them being shot. and they were all three black.

White folks commit those sorts of heinous crimes, every day, and never realize just how close they must have come to being shot to death.

Statistics have demonstrated that police officers are more likely to stop, and ticket, and even shoot blacks driving cars. And the curious thing is that the race of the police officer seems less significant than the race of the "offender".

More curious: Most killers of LEOs are White and Hispanic.

Just some stuff I been thinking about.

3 wrongful killings you mentioned is far from the hundred that was mentioned. Of course that goes without saying was wrong. Yes there have been LEO's that made bad/wrong judgement calls, and they should pay the price for that! However, LEO's in general have a very difficult job, and many times only have a split second to make life or death decisions. The life they save may be their own. Years ago, LEO's were respected and obeyed, and their directions were followed without hesitation, today, not so much.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:25 am

cars;1503843 wrote: 3 wrongful killings you mentioned is far from the hundred that was mentioned. Of course that goes without saying was wrong. Yes there have been LEO's that made bad/wrong judgement calls, and they should pay the price for that! However, LEO's in general have a very difficult job, and many times only have a split second to make life or death decisions. The life they save may be their own. Years ago, LEO's were respected and obeyed, and their directions were followed without hesitation, today, not so much.A myopic POV.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:55 am

I find it strange that police 'Killings' has to be preceded by 'Feloniously'

Is it only in America that killings of a police officer, or by a police officer need to be catogorised as legal or not ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:02 am

Bruv;1503848 wrote: I find it strange that police 'Killings' has to be preceded by 'Feloniously'

Is it only in America that killings of a police officer, or by a police officer need to be catogorised as legal or not ?I think the purpose for that was to point out it excluded accidental killings - I believe the associated article points that out.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:40 am

cars;1503813 wrote: Many, if not most, of those hundred people (as you say) are/were not totally innocent,We'll never know, which is the real tragedy. Because if you're even slightly wrong, that means we as a community are enabling serial killers masquerading as protectors. cars;1503813 wrote: or else the LEO likely would have not gotten involved with them in the first place.That's a rather gratuitous assumption. Police often become involved in situations where the issue does not warrant police involvement or where there is no guilt to apply to any individual - those aspects can only be sorted out based on the information they receive from the parties involved. Your assumption means that LEOs somehow intuitively think they know there's a guilty party and cause for aggressive action at all times. If you're correct in that then that offers insight as to why they're pulling the triggers or physically abusing people so quickly, and that is a dangerous precedent for everyone. cars;1503813 wrote: Every incident where a LEO interacts with a suspect, unfortunately these days has the potential to get violent. LEO's never know.This was always the case in law enforcement, the question is whether or not the incidents have become more or less and why.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:59 am

Ahso!;1503850 wrote: We'll never know, which is the real tragedy. Because if you're even slightly wrong, that means we as a community are enabling serial killers masquerading as protectors. That's a rather gratuitous assumption. Police often become involved in situations where the issue does not warrant police involvement or where there is no guilt to apply to any individual - those aspects can only be sorted out based on the information they receive from the parties involved. Your assumption means that LEOs somehow intuitively think they know there's a guilty party and cause for aggressive action at all times. If you're correct in that then that offers insight as to why they're pulling the triggers or physically abusing people so quickly, and that is a dangerous precedent for everyone. This was always the case in law enforcement, the question is whether or not the incidents have become more or less and why.

We all have a myopic POV.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:48 am

cars;1503843 wrote: Years ago, LEO's were respected and obeyed, and their directions were followed without hesitation, today, not so much.Sorry, but I simply don't see how this statement can be considered true in retrospect. How could anyone today look back at the brutality of police actions of the past and say it deserved respect.

Recalling the fact that so many police in the south were members of the KKK and abused blacks like they did; or the police abuse in the north against workers as unions were forming; or the behavior of Irish police in the abuse of Italians. Just to mention a few.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:57 am

Kent State - Remember that?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:01 am

Ahso!;1503852 wrote: Sorry, but I simply don't see how this statement can be considered true in retrospect. How could anyone today look back at the brutality of police actions of the past and say it deserved respect.

Recalling the fact that so many police in the south were members of the KKK and abused blacks like they did; or the police abuse in the north against workers as unions were forming; or the behavior of Irish police in the abuse of Italians. Just to mention a few.

Beautifully said, Ahso, thank you.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:08 am

Ahso!;1503849 wrote: I think the purpose for that was to point out it excluded accidental killings - I believe the associated article points that out.

Without being pedantic are you confusing "accidental death" with "killings".......felonious or not ?

I Googled killings and it says 'an act of causing death, especially deliberately.'

Sorry.........but grasping or not being able to recognise the difference might still be an American brain set thang........................mind you.........it could be my English brain set thing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:12 am

Bruv;1503856 wrote: Without being pedantic are you confusing "accidental death" with "killings".......felonious or not ?

I Googled killings and it says 'an act of causing death, especially deliberately.'

Sorry.........but grasping or not being able to recognise the difference might still be an American brain set thang........................mind you.........it could be my English brain set thing.Accidental deaths may carry less than a felony charge, but charges just the same. The felony charge usually suggests intent.

ETA: for example - a drug possession charge might be a misdemeanor, however, if intent to sell or distribute is added to the charge it turns it into a felony. Blacks are more likely to have the intent charges added on than would whites.

Any record of felony charges denies a person the right to vote; own a firearm; and lots of employment opportunities.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:25 pm

Yup......it's my English way of looking at it then........................or my inability to explain.

I suppose where arms are routinely carried by police and possibly Joe Doe................the rules are different.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:06 pm

Any death resulting from a discharged weapon of another person would probably be a felony with possibly a rare exception. However, firearms are not the only cause of death for police. Some die in car accidents as well as other ways. Running over a police officer deliberately with a car is the same as shooting.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:22 pm

Then why not replace 'feloniously killed' with 'murdered' ?

Sorry it might just be me (my brain hurts sometimes) feloniously killed, appears to me to be an Americanism akin to collateral damage or friendly fire.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:41 pm

Bruv;1503864 wrote: Then why not replace 'feloniously killed' with 'murdered' ?

Sorry it might just be me (my brain hurts sometimes) feloniously killed, appears to me to be an Americanism akin to collateral damage or friendly fire.I think it might be because any death that occurs during the course of any crime causes it to reach the felony threshold. So, while responding to the commission of a crime if a police office trips over a cat, hits his or her head and dies from the head injuries the person involved in the crime, no matter how minor, gets charged with a felony.

I think the person who did the research might have had to word it that way because that could be how it's categorized by the FBI.

Perhaps emailing the person who runs the sight could give you a better explanation.

cars · Post by **cars** » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:06 am

Ahso!;1503852 wrote: Sorry, but I simply don't see how this statement can be considered true in retrospect. How could anyone today look back at the brutality of police actions of the past and say it deserved respect.

Recalling the fact that so many police in the south were members of the KKK and abused blacks like they did; or the police abuse in the north against workers as unions were forming; or the behavior of Irish police in the abuse of Italians. Just to mention a few.

Yes, poor choice of words, should have been "fear".

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:48 pm

My experiences have led me to say there are some very honest and productive and pleasant police officers out there. The other side of the coin is that some belong in jail themselves. I am aware of a situation where police were fabricating evidence to convict a man of being a serial killer. He won in court and got a hefty payout because of it. There are two sets of laws here in Canada. There is one law for the authorities and another for the rest of us. I know of one man who spent about 60 years in prison for a murder he did not commit Some of the evidence was created and some of the real evidence was hidden from the court by the officer. He got his conviction and most the the man's life has passed him by. I know of other issues similar. I have little trust or faith in LEO.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:22 pm

I suspect the addition of the 'feloniously' is simply to water down the figures a little in an attempt to cover up the horrendous level of gun crimes, so as not to influence the Right to Bear Arms & all that. Killing is killing. How many Police Officers were killed 'accidentally' as opposed to 'feloniously' - or 'legally', for that matter?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:27 pm

Is Trump a fascist?? Are we heading to a third great war to promote the master race?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:55 pm

Ted;1504081 wrote: Is Trump a fascist?? Are we heading to a third great war to promote the master race?How do you think that plays out?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:29 am

Ahso!;1504098 wrote: How do you think that plays out?

You start it, you lose it - simples

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:52 am

Bryn Mawr;1504107 wrote: You start it, you lose it - simplesYou might be right.

Whether or not Trump is a fascist, we don't yet know. I am happy to know that the Obama/Clinton war hawks currently in positions of influence will be leaving shortly, though not fast enough. We're already headed toward WW3 if we're not careful. The question is whether or not that action is to promote the idea of a master race. I personally don't see that being the objective. A master economy perhaps.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:19 pm

Now we are told that Trump wants to make the nuclear arsenal even larger.

I am anything but antisemitic but I am anti-war crimes. I have great respect for the Jewish people and the terror that they went through. One example. A friend of mine was a Palestinians. He and his family lived on the family farm of more then 400 years. They were told they had 2 hours to pack up and get out or be shot. Now in my mind that is a war crime committed by thealled Children of God. I do know that it is the state and not the Jews in totality. That is one example of many. Read "The Lemon Tree" or "Bethlehem". There you will get what the news papers are told not to publish. TDrump, It would seem even supports the war crimes of the past and continueing today. It also seems that Canada does. Hypocrisy.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:48 am

Ted;1504504 wrote: Now we are told that Trump wants to make the nuclear arsenal even larger.

I am anything but antisemitic but I am anti-war crimes. I have great respect for the Jewish people and the terror that they went through. One example. A friend of mine was a Palestinians. He and his family lived on the family farm of more then 400 years. They were told they had 2 hours to pack up and get out or be shot. Now in my mind that is a war crime committed by thealled Children of God. I do know that it is the state and not the Jews in totality. That is one example of many. Read "The Lemon Tree" or "Bethlehem". There you will get what the news papers are told not to publish. TDrump, It would seem even supports the war crimes of the past and continueing today. It also seems that Canada does. Hypocrisy.

Okay, ted, you don't understand the mindset that has been going on here for over 5,000 years. Allow me to enlighten you by quoting

Joshua 24:13 --"I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and cities which you had not built, and you have lived in them; you are eating of vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant"

Exodus 6:8--"I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the LORD."

Deuteronomy 6:10-11--"Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied, And I have given you a land for which you did not labor, and cities which you built not, and you dwell in them; of the vineyards and olive groves which you planted not do you eat."

Israel is going by the Biblical Principles on which the nation is founded. To them, the settlements, the land, has already been given to them. If one believes this, then Israel is correct.

You may remember I am Jewish. I want Israel to exist. I also support the Obama position made in the United Nations the other day. However, I am not religious. If I were I'd probably be cheering Netanyahu for being true to the Torah.

Also remember, Jesus is not the only Jew to shed blood for the sins of the world. So did all the Jews who died because of anti-semitism in the last 2,000+ years. YOU (in general) created the modern state of Israel.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:10 am

AnneBoleyn;1504515 wrote: Okay, ted, you don't understand the mindset that has been going on here for over 5,000 years. Allow me to enlighten you by quoting

Joshua 24:13 --"I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and cities which you had not built, and you have lived in them; you are eating of vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant"

Exodus 6:8--"I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the LORD."

Deuteronomy 6:10-11--"Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied, And I have given you a land for which you did not labor, and cities which you built not, and you dwell in them; of the vineyards and olive groves which you planted not do you eat."

Israel is going by the Biblical Principles on which the nation is founded. To them, the settlements, the land, has already been given to them. If one believes this, then Israel is correct.

You may remember I am Jewish. I want Israel to exist. I also support the Obama position made in the United Nations the other day. However, I am not religious. If I were I'd probably be cheering Netanyahu for being true to the Torah.

Also remember, Jesus is not the only Jew to shed blood for the sins of the world. So did all the Jews who died because of anti-semitism in the last 2,000+ years. YOU (in general) created the modern state of Israel.

Sorry, but I do not believe it and I definitely do not believe that it gives the state of Israel the right to treat its non-Jewish citizens any differently from its Jewish citizens - especially given that its founding constitution states that it will not do so.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:48 am

Bryn Mawr;1504532 wrote: Sorry, but I do not believe it and I definitely do not believe that it gives the state of Israel the right to treat its non-Jewish citizens any differently from its Jewish citizens - especially given that its founding constitution states that it will not do so.

I did not say it did, I was merely explaining.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:57 am

AnneBoleyn;1504541 wrote: I did not say it did, I was merely explaining.

Ted gave an example of Palestinians in Israel being maltreated by the state, you tell him he doesn't understand what's going on and "enlighten" him by justifying the Jews ownership of the land in view of quotes from the Torah / Bible and say that this shows that Israel is right - how is this not saying that Israel has the right to treat its non-Jewish citizens differently from its Jewish citizens 'cos it sure wouldn't have happened to Jewish Israelis.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:28 am

I'm thinking Anne was attempting to relate from an official Israeli perspective.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:14 am

Ahso!;1504546 wrote: I'm thinking Anne was attempting to relate from an official Israeli perspective.

The official Israeli perspective is enshrined in the constitution - that all citizens will be treated equally regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds.

That, quite blatantly, is not happening.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:43 am

Bryn Mawr;1504549 wrote: The official Israeli perspective is enshrined in the constitution - that all citizens will be treated equally regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds.

That, quite blatantly, is not happening.

Yes, I realize that. What their constitution says and what they do are two very different things. I think Anne was relating the reality of the latter.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:54 am

Ahso!;1504553 wrote: Yes, I realize that. What their constitution says and what they do are two very different things. I think Anne was relating the reality of the latter.

And I maintain that, regardless of any supposed religious privilege, it is not acceptable behaviour for any civilised state.

And I would say that of ANY state regardless of the religion that the majority of its citizens follow - the actions of the secular government of the state of Israel are not the actions of the Jewish people as a whole and criticising those actions is NOT anti-Semitism regardless of any supposed definition the British government might choose to adopt.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:34 pm

You certainly won't get any argument from me on that.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:09 pm

Bryn Mawr;1504554 wrote: And I maintain that, regardless of any supposed religious privilege, it is not acceptable behaviour for any civilised state.

And I would say that of ANY state regardless of the religion that the majority of its citizens follow - the actions of the secular government of the state of Israel are not the actions of the Jewish people as a whole and criticising those actions is NOT anti-Semitism regardless of any supposed definition the British government might choose to adopt.

I think we are on the crest of a wave where any criticism or differences with certain factions/opinions is seen as an insensitive lack of understanding.

Welcoming immigrants, for instance is either destroying culture/raping our children, or the opposite, creating a perfect world society.

Social medical care is either incipient communism or an investment in society.

Brexiteers are little Englanders or Internationalists.

Israel is typical in that anything the Israeli government does, after millennia of persecution is seen in that context, fighting all the odds against hoards of Arabs hell bent on destroying them.................no middle ground.

(What does capercaillie mean, other than a game bird ?)

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:20 pm

Ted;1504504 wrote: Now we are told that Trump wants to make the nuclear arsenal even larger.

Whatever that means.

Ted;1504504 wrote: I am anything but antisemitic.

No reason anybody should question that.

Ted;1504504 wrote: One example. A friend of mine was a Palestinians. He and his family lived on the family farm of more then 400 years.

So in 1967 he became a Palestinian.

I find it quite remarkable that any family maintained a farm for 400 years.

They were told they had 2 hours to pack up and get out or be shot.

When and where did that happen?

Ted;1504504 wrote: Now in my mind that is a war crime committed by thealled Children of God.

"Children of God"

Who are they?

Ted;1504504 wrote: I do know that it is the state and not the Jews in totality. That is one example of many. Read "The Lemon Tree" or "Bethlehem". There you will get what the news papers are told not to publish. TDrump, It would seem even supports the war crimes of the past and continueing today. It also seems that Canada does. Hypocrisy.

The State of Israel is a Democracy with a Parliment which consists of representitives for pretty much of all citizens.

Current Knesset Members

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:28 pm

Ahso!;1504546 wrote: I'm thinking Anne was attempting to relate from an official Israeli perspective.

Yes, that is correct sir. As I said, just assigning motive, don't take it as agreement. Just Explaining. Children of God? Wow, what's that? Title of a Horror Movie maybe?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1504544 wrote: Ted gave an example of Palestinians in Israel being maltreated by the state, you tell him he doesn't understand what's going on and "enlighten" him by justifying the Jews ownership of the land in view of quotes from the Torah / Bible and say that this shows that Israel is right - how is this not saying that Israel has the right to treat its non-Jewish citizens differently from its Jewish citizens 'cos it sure wouldn't have happened to Jewish Israelis.

I just answered to that.

It was a nice story.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:12 pm

Donald Trump plans to shut down his charitable foundation, which has been under scrutiny for months

President-elect Donald Trump said he plans to shut down his charitable foundation, a decision that comes after repeated controversies over how it collected and disbursed funds.

In a statement Saturday, Trump offered no timeline for when his foundation would close down but said he had directed his attorney to take the steps needed to close it. It was not immediately clear when the foundation would be able to dissolve, given an ongoing investigation in New York.

Washington Post

I first read about Trumpholes's charity when I read

Donald Trump used money donated for charity to buy himself a Tim Tebow-signed football helmet

Did Donald Trump violate IRS rules, by using a charity's money to buy himself a signed football helmet?

Four years ago, at a charity fundraiser in Palm Beach, Donald Trump got into a bidding war at the evening's live auction. The items up for sale: A Denver Broncos helmet, autographed by then-star quarterback Tim Tebow, and a Tebow jersey.

Trump won, eventually, with a bid of $12,000. Afterward, he posed with the helmet. His purchase made gossip-column news: a flourish of generosity, by a mogul with money to burn. "The Donald giveth, and The Donald payeth," wrote the Palm Beach Daily News. "Blessed be the name of The Donald."

But Trump didn't actually pay with his own money.

Instead, the Susan G. Komen organization â€” the breast-cancer nonprofit that hosted the party â€” got a $12,000 payment from another nonprofit , the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Trump himself sent no money. (In fact, a Komen spokeswoman said, Trump has never given a personal gift of cash to the Komen organization.) He paid the bill with money from a charity he founded in 1987, but which is largely stocked with other people's money. Trump is the foundation's president. But, at the time of the auction, Trump had given none of his own money to the foundation for three years running.

Washington Post

Taking credit for other peoples chartiy is the kind of thing to expect from that guy.

Trump boasts about his philanthropy. But his giving falls short of his words

In the fall of 1996, a charity called the Association to Benefit Children held a ribbon-cutting in Manhattan for a new nursery school serving children with AIDS. The bold-faced names took seats up front.

There was then-Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) and former mayor David Dinkins (D). TV stars Frank and Kathie Lee Gifford, who were major donors. And there was a seat saved for Steven Fisher, a developer who had given generously to build the nursery.

Then, all of a sudden, there was Donald Trump.

â€œNobody knew he was coming,â€ said Abigail Disney, another donor sitting on the dais. â€œThereâ€™s this kind of ruckus at the door, and I donâ€™t know what was going on, and in comes Donald Trump. [He] just gets up on the podium and sits down.â€

Trump was not a major donor. He was not a donor, period. Heâ€™d never given a dollar to the nursery or the Association to Benefit Children, according to Gretchen Buchenholz, the charityâ€™s executive director then and now.

But now he was sitting in Fisherâ€™s seat, next to Giuliani.

â€œFrank Gifford turned to me and said, â€˜Why is he here?â€™â€‰â€ Buchenholz recalled recently. By then, the ceremony had begun. There was nothing to do.

â€œJust sing past it,â€ she recalled Gifford telling her.

So they warbled into the first song on the program, â€œThis Little Light of Mine,â€ alongside Trump and a chorus of children â€” with a photographer snapping photos, and Trump looking for all the world like an honored donor to the cause.

Afterward, Disney and Buchenholz recalled, Trump left without offering an explanation. Or a donation. Fisher was stuck in the audience. The charity spent months trying to repair its relationship with him.

Wahington Post

Made me always wonder why this stuff never made the MMM, Main Mess Media

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:22 pm

AnneBoleyn;1504568 wrote: Yes, that is correct sir. As I said, just assigning motive, don't take it as agreement. Just Explaining. Children of God? Wow, what's that? Title of a Horror Movie maybe?

Hey listen, I just ended 2 days of full partying. I'm exhausted. I shouldn't have agreed with "official Israeli perspective" I should have said UNSPOKEN, or esoteric, Perspective. You get a bunch of religious people together who think the Bible is the Living Word, well, what do you expect? That is a truth for Any Religious group. They believe, they believe..........and so on.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:28 pm

Bruv;1504563 wrote: I think we are on the crest of a wave where any criticism or differences with certain factions/opinions is seen as an insensitive lack of understanding.

Welcoming immigrants, for instance is either destroying culture/raping our children, or the opposite, creating a perfect world society.

Social medical care is either incipient communism or an investment in society.

Brexiteers are little Englanders or Internationalists.

Israel is typical in that anything the Israeli government does, after millennia of persecution is seen in that context, fighting all the odds against hoards of Arabs hell bent on destroying them.................no middle ground.

(What does capercaillie mean, other than a game bird ?)

It's like a grouse only bigger

Anyway, back to your point, I think your last comment falls into the usual error - conflating the Israeli government with Jews as a whole. What the Israeli government does is run a country - it's not even composed only of Jews, there's an admixture of Arabs in there too.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:20 pm

Bryn Mawr;1504578 wrote: It's like a grouse only bigger

I thought that was what you meant, but had to check. Couldn't believe brothers could have the same quirky sense of humour.

Anyway, back to your point, I think your last comment falls into the usual error - conflating the Israeli government with Jews as a whole. What the Israeli government does is run a country - it's not even composed only of Jews, there's an admixture of Arabs in there too.

You said what I meant to say, but lack your eloquence.

I was trying to say criticism of Israeli government policy is not antisemitic, but that is how the Israeli government would like it seen.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:57 am

Bruv;1504622 wrote: I thought that was what you meant, but had to check. Couldn't believe brothers could have the same quirky sense of humour.

You said what I meant to say, but lack your eloquence.

I was trying to say criticism of Israeli government policy is not antisemitic, but that is how the Israeli government would like it seen.

He's had a good teacher

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:15 pm

The state of Israel not the average citizen commits what I firmly believe are war crimes. As for my sources;Authors, people who have recently been to Israel and Jews themselves.. My story is true and I stand by it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:16 pm

IDonnie Trump the friend of Putin. I think he is a looser.

AndrejM · Post by **AndrejM** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:48 pm

all i have to say

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:15 am

AndrejM;1505104 wrote: all i have to sayI hadn't seen most of the content of that video before because I knew early on I wasn't going to vote for either major candidate, but the majority of that is just down right funny. There's also a longer video which is even more entertaining.

I hadn't watched one televised debate and my news is of the print variety as opposed the TV entertainment variety so it's all new to me.