Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I have heard North Korea is supporting Donald Trump. Keep in mind they loathe America and blame them for their troubles.
There’s a reason Donald Trump is refusing to release his taxes, and it’s not just because of an ongoing audit at the IRS.
http://news.groopspeak.com/breaking-trum...sure-form/

Recently it has just been discovered that Trump, in an effort to show the world how rich he is, valued one of his properties at “more than $50 million,” yet his attorneys, for tax purposes, tried to argue that it is really only worth $1.35 million. The property in question, The Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, New York, is a sprawling 147-acre private club with manicured lawns, stone bridges, and has a 101-foot waterfall.

If Trump’s attorneys are legitimately trying to value the property correctly, then that means Trump lied on his candidate disclosure form.

But, here’s the thing: chances are what’s really happening is that Trump is drastically undervaluing the property in order to not pay his fair share of taxes on the property. Either way, he’s lying.

Here’s what we know: Trump bought the property for $8 million in a foreclosure sale and then immediately spent $45 million to build an 18-hole golf course, as well as a 75,000-square-foot clubhouse. Those improvements are quite substantial. That begs the question then, how on earth would Trump’s tax assessment decrease from the purchase price even with all of those upgrades?

That’s exactly what the town of Ossining is trying to figure out. Dana Levenberg, the town supervisor, says this is hurting their town’s revenues.

“Trump says he represents the little guy, but the little guy is going to have to pay his taxes for him here in Ossining.”

If Trump gets his way then that means he would be cutting his tax burden by 90 percent, dumping the burden on everyone else.

Further investigative research reveals that Trump’s lawyers are taking the same approach at Trump’s other properties around the country, in an attempt to limit how much taxes the billionaire actually pays.

Everyone is well aware of the loopholes that currently exist in the complicated environment of tax policy in the United States but this is something entirely different. On one hand, Trump is publicly boasting about how rich he is, and how much his properties are worth, but on the other hand, is trying to say they’re worth just a fraction of that when it comes time to pay Uncle Sam. And – it’s just wrong.

No wonder Trump is the only presidential candidate since 1976 to not release his tax returns. It all makes sense now.
BREAKING: ABC Uncovers MILLIONS Of Payments From Russia To Trump, Campaign Panics
By Shanae Ewing - September 23, 2016
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/09/23/b...gn-panics/

ABC News investigative journalist Brian Ross released a news piece that could end any type of credibility Donald Trump may have left. In this newest report, Ross found Trump’s Russian connections to have a bigger role in his life than he’s lead on. This could be a direct conflict of interest for Trump if he should become elected president in November.

In previous interviews, Trump has continuously denied any serious ties with Russian oligarchs. Those statements have already been proven false several times over, seeing how Trump has been very cozy with Vladimir Putin the past few years. Hillary Clinton has released attack ads trying to expose Trump’s Russian ties in the past. Now Brian Ross talks with people who have had actual connections with Trump, proving his denial is a joke.

One man that Ross spoke to was Sergei Millian, a head of a U.S.-Russian business group. He says he assisted Trump with marketing the sale of his condos in Russia. Millian spoke about all the money Trump made from the Russians back then.

‘The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen.’

Ross repeated with emphasis, “Hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian businessmen?” and Millian responded with a nod and a firm, “Correct.”

Ross also pointed out that in a previous interview Trump had with ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos, Trump said he didn’t have any relationship with Russia other than probably selling condos to people.

Trump has also said that if he were to become president, he wouldn’t have any type of influence in business decisions made. He claims his children would be handling all that due to a “blind trust.” Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who also worked alongside President G.W. Bush as his ethics adviser said that isn’t the case at all.

‘I don’t see how you have a blind trust when you know what’s in the blind trust. The appearance is that a foreign government or other foreign organization has influence over the President of the United States through financial dealings with his family and that would be unacceptable.’

Although Trump has been trying to minimize any relationships he has with Russia, he has failed miserably in the eyes of the media. Eventually, and hopefully with enough pressure, Trump will have to break down and admit he’s been lying once again. If and when he does, it will definitely mean big trouble for his campaign in this race.
Worst week in US presidential campaign history?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...ry-n658071
Michelle Cottle of The Atlantic seems to agree with me: Ivanka is a woman to watch. Could she be a factor in future presidential campaigns? Consider her astronomically-high horoscope score of 14-1 as you read this article:

Why Ivanka Is Trump's Top Surrogate
The potential first daughter has a knack for political diplomacy her father lacks.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...te/501662/

MICHELLE COTTLE SEP 28, 2016 POLITICS

It’s no secret that Paul Ryan and Donald Trump are not besties. The Republican presidential pick has little use for the Speaker’s wonky, establishment ways. Ryan, meanwhile, increasingly looks as though he feels about Trump the way most Americans feel about Anthony Weiner: Please, God, just make him go away!

Practically speaking, however, it simply won’t do to have the top-ranked GOP officer holder completely out of touch with his party’s nominee. The optics are terrible, and there’s nothing the political media enjoy quite like stories about internecine unpleasantness.

Under such ticklish conditions, there was really only one way for the two men to bridge this gulf without losing face: Bring in Ivanka.

So it was that Trump’s elder daughter and the House Speaker sat down together for an intimate chat in Manhattan last Monday. Arranged at Ivanka’s behest, the meeting took place immediately after Ryan’s address to the Economic Club of New York: Ivanka briefed Ryan on her dad’s campaign; Ryan regaled Ivanka with war stories from 2012. It was, the Speaker’s people assured me, “a productive conversation.”

The very next afternoon, Ivanka ventured even deeper into the political jungle. Jetting down to Washington, she met with more than a dozen Republican women legislators on Capitol Hill. The topic was her father’s childcare plan, which Ivanka reportedly helped formulate. (The invitation came from conference chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, whose political office did not respond to repeated inquiries about the inspiration for, gist of, or anything else to do with the meeting.) Afterward, Rep. Marsha Blackburn told Roll Call that the confab had been “informative” and said Ivanka seemed knowledgeable about the issue—which is more than has ever been said of her dad in any policy area.

Of all the ways Team Trump is reinventing presidential politics this cycle, among the most curious is the emergence of his daughter as the ultimate utility player. Part character witness, part strategist, part policy advisor, and part goodwill ambassador, Ivanka is expanding the role of aspiring First Daughter in a way that no previous aspiring First Child has attempted—and few others could likely get away with.

First and foremost, of course, Ivanka is performing the expected function of a political child: presenting an attractive, appealing tribute to her hyper-ambitious parent’s softer side. Indeed, by all accounts she is more dazzling in the role than most family surrogates—perhaps because the contrast between her polished self-presentation and her dad’s carnival-barker persona is so stark. Just think about the number of times since Ivanka’s convention debut that you’ve heard (or perhaps even uttered) some variation of, “Well, if the guy raised a daughter like that, he can’t be all bad.”

Ivanka’s work as humanizer-in-chief is more vital than usual because Trump’s wife, Melania, is so poorly suited for the job. Even setting aside the brouhaha over Melania’s convention-speech plagiarism and the awkward questions about her visa status during her early days of modeling here, Melania does nothing to make Trump seem more relatable. She is too young, too hot, and, yes, too exotic. (Just try picturing the Slovenian-born supermodel snarfing down corndogs and casually chatting up Middle America’s working moms about the high costs of child care.) If anything, she is a reminder of how very different her thrice-married, reality-show, real-estate heir of a husband is from the average American. Ivanka may be richer than most voters, but she radiates a humanity, decency, and basic likability that the rest of that family sorely lacks. As such, she is essentially pulling double duty in normalizing the candidate.

Beyond providing a personal touch to Team Trump, Ivanka is also stepping out as a policy surrogate on so-called women’s issues. Post-convention, she has been pitching her dad’s child-care plans in interviews, on the trail, and, this week, to Republican congresswomen (all of whom are answerable on such matters to their constituents). She has hit a bump or two in this capacity. For instance, when Cosmo presented her with some tougher-than-expected questions, Ivanka got snippy and cut short the interview.

Still, for anyone unnerved by the Donald’s sketchy handling of women (either personally or politically), Ivanka provides both hope and comfort. Whether or not she has personally struggled with issues like parental leave or equal pay, she talks a pretty good game. Plus, she’s got that whole “Women Who Work” book coming out early next year based on her company’s initiative of the same name.

Intertwined with all this, there’s Ivanka’s roll as ambassador to the Republican elite and moderates more broadly. If Donald Jr. is the Trump child best suited for outreach to his dad’s rowdy, alt-right base, Ivanka is the one most palatable to the electorate’s less edgy elements. This definitely includes members of the party establishment who, for whatever reason, might find it distasteful or politically complicated to be seen publicly snuggling with her dad—such as, say, women lawmakers or a House Speaker with a political brand (and ambitions) to protect. For anyone worried about getting too close to the unstable ball of toxic gas that is Donald Trump, Ivanka provides a less risky, more socially respectable alternative.

Considering Ivanka’s lack of policy or political background, it’s striking to see her adopting such wide-ranging responsibilities in her dad’s campaign. It is more striking still that her role has thus far drawn virtually no criticism. When her Cosmo interview went sideways, the chattering class noted her poor performance. But the basic fact of Ivanka’s centrality to her dad’s campaign has raised vanishingly few eyebrows. Just imagine the kind of abuse that Chelsea Clinton or Tagg Romney would have taken under the same conditions.

Then again, in a campaign where the nominee himself is a proud political and policy neophyte, why should his daughter/ strategist/policy adviser be expected to have any more experience or expertise?
(10-03-2016, 02:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]<snip vid>
I don't like poll taxes and ID requirements and such, but maybe an IQ test should be required for people to vote?? lol Is there a test for deplorability?

More about Trump supporters:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/30/...-About-You

Uh, for males, that would be pole tax, not poll tax, silly.  Think of it as a luxury for those possessing the largest "poles". Cool

  Some Presidential candidates have a position you know!
(10-04-2016, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Michelle Cottle of The Atlantic seems to agree with me: Ivanka is a woman to watch. Could she be a factor in future presidential campaigns?

It seems increasingly likely that The Donald is going to crash and burn big time, perhaps to the point of tainting his entire family.  Still, he made a big enough splash that someone or other will try to copy his approach.  I'm not sure how easy it would be to copy.  A lot of what Trump does is based on his rather exotic media skills and persona.  Copying that seems tricky to me at best.

But Trump has driven a huge wedge between the establishment pro Robber Baron wing of the Republicans and the haters of all things Washington DC.  I'm not seeing this divide going away soon.  It also seems real, not a media showtime charisma based carnival side show, as so much of Trump's act seems to be.  It seems possible that a sane seeming less off the wall candidate with fewer self destructive tendencies might be able to exploit the split between establishment Washington DC Republicans and the rural base.

Ivanka?  She has the looks, name recognition, connections and apparently skills to become a pro politician.  She seems to have the discipline to create the impression of competence.  Like her father, she has no experience in government.  If she starts running for office with a stop in the US Senate or a governor's chair she might position herself for a serious presidential run.  For most potential presidential candidates this would mean a decade or three of paying dues and learning ropes.  If she works on picking up experience, she could apprentice herself into becoming a potentially competent office holder.  

Being who she is, she might be able to short cut that somewhat.  How long did Hillary and Obama work in government before they started being viewed as potential presidents?  Ivanka might not have to invest that much time before making a run, but I think she'd be better off if she did.

But if she doesn't position herself as a sane driver of her father's Wedge, I suspect somebody else will.
(10-04-2016, 02:23 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2016, 02:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]<snip vid>
I don't like poll taxes and ID requirements and such, but maybe an IQ test should be required for people to vote?? lol Is there a test for deplorability?

More about Trump supporters:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/30/...-About-You

Uh, for males, that would be pole tax, not poll tax, silly.  Think of it as a luxury for those possessing the largest "poles". Cool

  Some Presidential candidates have a position you know!

Right, and Trump was also filmed dumping champaign on a limo full of Playboy dolls and bimbos. The only question is, how explicit will this new test for office become? Will the pole tax become a show tax?
(10-04-2016, 03:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-04-2016, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Michelle Cottle of The Atlantic seems to agree with me: Ivanka is a woman to watch. Could she be a factor in future presidential campaigns?

It seems increasingly likely that The Donald is going to crash and burn big time, perhaps to the point of tainting his entire family.  Still, he made a big enough splash that someone or other will try to copy his approach.  I'm not sure how easy it would be to copy.  A lot of what Trump does is based on his rather exotic media skills and persona.  Copying that seems tricky to me at best.

But Trump has driven a huge wedge between the establishment pro Robber Baron wing of the Republicans and the haters of all things Washington DC.  I'm not seeing this divide going away soon.  It also seems real, not a media showtime charisma based carnival side show, as so much of Trump's act seems to be.  It seems possible that a sane seeming less off the wall candidate with fewer self destructive tendencies might be able to exploit the split between establishment Washington DC Republicans and the rural base.

Ivanka?  She has the looks, name recognition, connections and apparently skills to become a pro politician.  She seems to have the discipline to create the impression of competence.  Like her father, she has no experience in government.  If she starts running for office with a stop in the US Senate or a governor's chair she might position herself for a serious presidential run.  For most potential presidential candidates this would mean a decade or three of paying dues and learning ropes.  If she works on picking up experience, she could apprentice herself into becoming a potentially competent office holder.  

Being who she is, she might be able to short cut that somewhat.  How long did Hillary and Obama work in government before they started being viewed as potential presidents?  Ivanka might not have to invest that much time before making a run, but I think she'd be better off if she did.

But if she doesn't position herself as a sane driver of her father's Wedge, I suspect somebody else will.

But Trump IS a robber baron.  The other barons just need to adopt some of his brand; but not all of it because the barons can point to his lost and tell the sheeple that they can't go completely nutso, wink-wink, until  fully ensconced in the WH.

The sheeple group of Albion's Seed are not going to change; they will always be manipulated by the plantation elites - their slaughter in the Civil War made that pretty clear. They are destined to fade with demographics and that will eventually undermine the political power of the latest plantation elites and robber barons - this could be the last national election where they had a chance; 2020 might make that clear.

It could be Ivanka to carry the torch in 2020, but I'm not sure a woman leader will fit the mold of what the sheeple will buy unless she comes from the Palin mold, but that is not Ivanka.  More likely, it will either be another media-driven male, maybe Glen Beck or Sean Hannity; or, it will be Ryan, Cruz or Rubio trying to be a media-driven person.  They will all try to find the perfect balance between like-Trump-but-not-too-much-like-Trump to align with their sheeples' desire of wanna-Trump-but-one-that-can-sneak-into-the-WH-and-then-rain-down-hell-on-all-the-libratards-and-all-"the-others."  Trump will have a big role as kingmaker for the GOP nomination , but fortunately not for the actual WH.
(10-04-2016, 09:20 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]But Trump IS a robber baron.  The other barons just need to adopt some of his brand; but not all of it because the barons can point to his lost and tell the sheeple that they can't go completely nutso, wink-wink, until  fully ensconced in the WH.

The sheeple group of Albion's Seed are not going to change; they will always be manipulated by the plantation elites - their slaughter in the Civil War made that pretty clear. They are destined to fade with demographics and that will eventually undermine the political power of the latest plantation elites and robber barons - this could be the last national election where they had a chance; 2020 might make that clear.

It could be Ivanka to carry the torch in 2020, but I'm not sure a woman leader will fit the mold of what the sheeple will buy unless she comes from the Palin mold, but that is not Ivanka.  More likely, it will either be another media-driven male, maybe Glen Beck or Sean Hannity; or, it will be Ryan, Cruz or Rubio trying to be a media-driven person.  They will all try to find the perfect balance between like-Trump-but-not-too-much-like-Trump to align with their sheeples' desire of wanna-Trump-but-one-that-can-sneak-into-the-WH-and-then-rain-down-hell-on-all-the-libratards-and-all-"the-others."  Trump will have a big role as kingmaker for the GOP nomination , but fortunately not for the actual WH.

In the end, Donald Trump's contradictions will take him down. He is a robber baron of the worst kind, someone who makes his money by exploiting a shortage (real estate in greater New York City) that he never solves. At the least, John D. Rockefeller II got America some cheap fuel and may have saved some whale populations. He is anti-government, but his political experience looks largely like getting zoning variances and tax breaks.

Sheeple? That's too nice. Trump supporters seem like the weird sheep-wolf hybrid... and I don't mean the sheep-guarding dog that looks like a sheep. The sheep-wolf hybrid follows its wolf-like leaders with utter submission yet attacks with canine ferocity those that the wolf-like leaders ask be attacked. Those people will still be around, searching for some other authoritarian hero in 2020 and later.

Rich media figure? The image is falling apart. Donald Trump's proposals will make America a nastier place.
Crooked WHO?

Trump Used Foundation Funds for 2016 Run, Filings Suggest
1.9k Shares
By Rebecca Berg
October 04, 2016

As Donald Trump began making noise about a possible bid for president in 2011, South Carolina conservative activist Oran Smith caught the celebrity businessman’s eye as a particularly vocal and potentially influential critic.

"Trump would get thumped here,” Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, a social conservative public policy group, told the Christian Broadcasting Network. “He is a celebrity, but an apprentice at politics.”


Smith’s comments appeared in a March 2011 CBN story alongside feedback from other key national evangelical leaders such as Ralph Reed and Tony Perkins. Shortly after the story ran, Trump called Smith and invited him to meet at Trump Tower in New York, Smith told RealClearPolitics, “to see if he could convince me those things weren’t true.”

“It probably had something to do with, I was in an early primary state,” Smith said. Trump was “laying the foundation for a ... campaign,” Smith thought at the time, although “it was difficult trying to tell if he was serious about running for president or not.”

During their meeting in Trump’s office, they discussed Christian faith and religious liberty. Smith was struck by “a different Donald Trump than I expected.” On his way out the door, Smith asked that Trump consider donating to the Palmetto Family Council.

“He was never heavy-handed about any quid pro quo,” Smith said.

But Trump delivered.

“It was a quiet donation that came with a simple cover letter,” Smith said. It read: “Great meeting with you and your wife in my office,” dated May 6, 2011. Enclosed was a check for $10,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

That check is one of at least several donations to suggest Trump used his private foundation, funded by outside donors, to launch and fuel his political ambitions. Such contributions, if they were made solely for Trump’s benefit, could violate federal self-dealing laws for private foundations.

From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation’s tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.

Although sources familiar with the thinking behind the donations cautioned that Trump did not explicitly ask for favors in return for the money, they said the contributions were part of a deliberate effort by Trump to ingratiate himself with influential conservatives and brighten his political prospects.

“He was politically active starting in 2011,” said one source with ties to Trump, and at that point he “started to make strategic donations.”

The lion’s share of those donations came from Trump’s personal funds and went straight to political campaigns or parties. But others, in particular those directed to the nonprofit arms of conservative policy groups, originated with Trump’s foundation.

“If he could do 501©(3) to 501©(3), he did it that way,” said the source, using the tax code designation for nonprofit organizations.

But Trump has not donated to the foundation that bears his name since 2008, CNN reported last month, which means other donors bore the cost of his giving.

The donations to groups that granted Trump plum speaking slots or otherwise promoted his political aspirations also might run afoul of self-dealing rules for private foundations, which prohibit a foundation’s leadership from using donor money for its own gain.

“Getting the right to speak or access to networking events, that’s definitely starting to push into self-dealing, where you’re using the private foundation assets to benefit Mr. Trump,” said Rosemary Fei, a partner at the Adler & Colvin law firm in San Francisco, where she specializes in charity law.

Multiple Trump campaign aides did not respond to requests for comment.

This potential conflict echoes other improper donations and practices by the Donald J. Trump Foundation that have recently come to light during his campaign for president.

Earlier this year, the Washington Post revealed that Trump’s foundation improperly donated $25,000 to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013, later misreporting it on its annual filing in a way that obscured the contribution. Trump’s foundation this year paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS as a result, the Post reported last month.

The Post also reported that Trump and his wife, Melania, have spent thousands of Trump Foundation dollars at charity auctions for items they have personally kept, including two portraits of Trump and a football helmet signed by Tim Tebow.

Most recently, the Post found that Trump’s foundation solicited donations in New York without proper certification from the state. In the wake of that story, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered Monday that Trump’s foundation immediately stop soliciting donations.

Schneiderman, a Democrat who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, has opened a broader investigation into the foundation, a probe that Trump and his campaign have cast as “political in nature.”

But RCP’s review of IRS filings by the Trump foundation turned up a fresh conflict: a 2013 donation of $10,000 to The Family Leader, a 501©(4) established to “develop, advocate and support legislative agenda at the state level.” Unlike a 501©(3), or a nonprofit organization, a 501©(4) can effect policy and engage in limited political activity, and thus is subject to greater restrictions on contributions from charities.

If the Trump foundation sent its money to The Family Leader and not its affiliated nonprofit, it did not properly note it in the filing and might have failed to earmark the money for charitable purposes, a violation of IRS rules. If the money was sent to the Family Leader Foundation, it was not recorded as such.

“There’s a mistake somewhere,” said Fei. “It might be a really substantive mistake, or it could just be a reporting error or sloppiness. But improper reporting is still a violation of tax law. That’s something the IRS would look at.”

The donation also appears to have been geared toward boosting Trump’s political prospects, raising the specter of another possible violation for self-dealing.

In the same year that Trump’s foundation made that $10,000 contribution, The Family Leader featured Trump as a marquee speaker for the first time at its influential leadership summit in Iowa. The announcement raised eyebrows: Craig Robinson, editor of the Iowa Republican blog, wrote that Trump was “an odd fit for a social conservative confab,” while the Family Leader was roundly criticized by other Iowa conservatives for including Trump in the program.

But Bob Vander Plaats, the group’s president and CEO, nevertheless heaped praise on Trump — telling RCP at the time that Trump “sure would be” a serious presidential candidate in 2016 if he were to run.

“I think the best predictor of the future is to look at the past, and he’s been a pretty successful guy, so I wouldn’t count him out,” Vander Plaats said. The following year, in 2014, Trump’s foundation donated another $10,000 to The Family Leader — but this time to its nonprofit arm, in accordance with tax law. A spokesman for The Family Leader did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, there are half a dozen other such examples of Trump having used his foundation to help curry or cement favor, the IRS 990 forms show.

The Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, for example, might have seemed an unusual political ally for the brash mogul from New York — but in April 2011, Graham began to publicly express support for the celebrity businessman as Trump weighed a bid for president.

"When I first saw that he was getting in, I thought, ‘Well, this has got to be a joke,’" Graham told ABC News at the time. "But the more you listen to him, the more you say to yourself, ‘You know, maybe the guy's right.'”

Sometime in 2012, Trump used his foundation to send $100,000 to Graham’s association — one of the largest donations the foundation would make to any group that year.

But Trump’s most impactful donations might have been those to conservative groups that could offer him a platform from which to test his presidential message and garner media attention for it.

In 2013, Trump took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, outside of Washington, D.C., where he touted his business record, railed against President Obama’s policies, and declared: “We have to make America great again.”

That same year, Trump used his foundation to donate $50,000 to the American Conservative Union Foundation, the nonprofit arm of the group that organizes CPAC and sets its program. He did not ask for a speaking slot in return, but he did not need to.

“Everyone’s too smart to say, ‘Donate and we’ll let you speak,’” said one source familiar with the donation. “It was kind of understood.”

Trump was also listed as a CPAC sponsor in 2015, in the immediate lead-up to his presidential campaign. ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp did not respond to an email from RCP asking whether Trump’s foundation footed the bill or he did.

But Trump’s greatest early political exposure might have come from Citizens United, a conservative political group whose president, David Bossie, met with Trump in 2011 about a potential presidential bid and remained a close ally. More recently, Bossie took leave from his group last month to join Trump’s campaign as deputy campaign manager.

In April 2014, when Citizens United hosted a “cattle call” of would-be Republican candidates for president in New Hampshire, Trump was there. In January 2015, at Citizens United’s Freedom Summit in Iowa, Trump was again on the program. And at the group’s South Carolina summit in May 2015, Trump also took to the stage.

The high-profile events were held in three key battleground states. And it was no fluke: Bossie had insisted Trump be included in one of the group’s events “because he was a good friend to Citizens United,” said a source with knowledge of the discussions.

It might have helped that, in 2014, Trump’s foundation donated $100,000 to the Citizens United Foundation, by far its single largest donation to any group that year. RCP reached Bossie by phone Monday and offered him an opportunity to respond; Bossie said he would call back but did not and subsequently could not be reached for comment.

Trump has maintained that his speaking invitations prior to his candidacy for president were a reflection of his popularity. At an event at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C, in December 2014, Trump thanked the club’s president, David Rubenstein, for inviting him to attend.

“David called and he said, ‘Would you do this?’” Trump said. “When David calls, I say yes.”

Trump was planning to travel to Iowa in a few weeks for the Citizens United summit there, and Rubenstein kicked off the discussion by asking whether that might mean Trump was weighing a bid for president.

Trump looked out into the crowd. “It’s a great group, so many friends. One of them is David Bossie, who right now is heading up that whole dinner and whole weekend in Iowa. He said, ‘Would you do it?' And I have great respect for David and what he’s done and what he represents, so I agreed to do it. And it’s going to be a great event.”

Of running for president, Trump finally said, “I am considering it very strongly.” And, for roughly an hour thereafter, he discussed policy and political themes in a setting that lent him gravitas and legitimacy.

It’s unclear when the check for $6,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation arrived for the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. But Trump gave his remarks Dec. 15 — and the donation appears on the foundation’s 2014 filing, suggesting it was written prior to the event or in the two weeks following it.

The money, and other donations like it, could raise further questions about whether Trump used money from his foundation’s donors for his own benefit rather than for charity.

“If what he talked about was promoting his candidacy or fundraising for his campaign, it is not only self-dealing but potentially involves the foundation in making a grant to support political activity,” said Fei. “That’s prohibited.”

Rebecca Berg is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at rberg@realclearpolitics.com.
(10-04-2016, 03:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-04-2016, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Michelle Cottle of The Atlantic seems to agree with me: Ivanka is a woman to watch. Could she be a factor in future presidential campaigns?

It seems increasingly likely that The Donald is going to crash and burn big time, perhaps to the point of tainting his entire family.  Still, he made a big enough splash that someone or other will try to copy his approach.  I'm not sure how easy it would be to copy.  A lot of what Trump does is based on his rather exotic media skills and persona.  Copying that seems tricky to me at best.

But Trump has driven a huge wedge between the establishment pro Robber Baron wing of the Republicans and the haters of all things Washington DC.  I'm not seeing this divide going away soon.  It also seems real, not a media showtime charisma based carnival side show, as so much of Trump's act seems to be.  It seems possible that a sane seeming less off the wall candidate with fewer self destructive tendencies might be able to exploit the split between establishment Washington DC Republicans and the rural base.

Ivanka?  She has the looks, name recognition, connections and apparently skills to become a pro politician.  She seems to have the discipline to create the impression of competence.  Like her father, she has no experience in government.  If she starts running for office with a stop in the US Senate or a governor's chair she might position herself for a serious presidential run.  For most potential presidential candidates this would mean a decade or three of paying dues and learning ropes.  If she works on picking up experience, she could apprentice herself into becoming a potentially competent office holder.  

Being who she is, she might be able to short cut that somewhat.  How long did Hillary and Obama work in government before they started being viewed as potential presidents?  Ivanka might not have to invest that much time before making a run, but I think she'd be better off if she did.

But if she doesn't position herself as a sane driver of her father's Wedge, I suspect somebody else will.

That's all correct.

Just taking my astrological system, for example (believe in it or not, as you will), it's clear that a high score does not guarantee election or nomination. As I say in my article
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
a candidate has to get him or herself into a position to be known, and usually needs to be in a major party and compatible with that party, before the score can come into play. But it does indicate potential talent as a candidate, one that might appeal to Americans, according to the empirical research I have done.

Two candidates had higher scores than Donald Trump who ran in the Republican primary. George Pataki (13-3) did not do much to get support or get much within his party in any case, and did not actually run in any primaries. If he had made a more dedicated effort, and gotten enough credible exposure, he might have made a good run; but he was still too liberal for his party to vote for him. Carly Fiorina, who had a modestly positive score in my old system, does better in my updated one: 16-6. She showed her talent and appeal at the debates, but she never had the celebrity status that Trump had, nor the credibility of having held political office. So although she graduated herself from the minor card group to the major one, she didn't catch fire.

Meanwhile Ted Cruz and John Kasich ran determined campaigns and stayed in until Trump won Indiana. They had the credibility of elected public office and good exposure, but they had the lowest scores of any of the candidates, except perhaps Lindsay Graham. Cruz had the advantage of 3 rising planets, but his score otherwise is only 3-12, and Kasich is even worse, 2-14. Kasich only won his home state. Those two had no real appeal or likability beyond their core supporters, and could never have been elected. Rubio had a pretty good score, 13-7, but Trump's score of 8-4 was proportionally better. Originally, on my older system, Trump had a 15-4 rating.

Bernie Sanders (14-5 on new system, 10-0 on the old) had a higher score than Hillary (12-9), although Hillary has Jupiter rising, which so far has been invincible for any candidate with a positive score. But although I think I know Bernie's full horoscope, I can't compare most other current or historical primary candidates in regard to rising planets, although I know most of the presidents and party nominees in that regard. So I don't include Jupiter rising in the official scores.

So perhaps Ivanka, 14-1, might become a celebrity, and she would do well to run for office first if she decides to be a politician and run for president. It's a long-term indication, not one that she could run and win anytime soon.
Let's laugh at Trump while we can, I wrote. Because if he's elected:

1. We won't be laughing, we'll be crying.

2. We won't be allowed to laugh at him.

and/or

3. We'll just be tired of his sick sarcastic humor and stunts by then.

or even:

4. We'll all be dead and/or fleeing the country.
(10-05-2016, 04:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Let's laugh at Trump while we can, I wrote. Because if he's elected:

1. We won't be laughing, we'll be crying.

2. We won't be allowed to laugh at him.

and/or

3. We'll just be tired of his sick sarcastic humor and stunts by then.

or even:

4. We'll all be dead and/or fleeing the country.

You forgot:

5. We will be in prison or hiding.


A Closer Look at Kaine v. Pence, and Trump v. Pence! (the latter toward the end)



And with a 9-9 score Pence has no chance! (Kaine is not much better, 13-9).
David Letterman Calls Donald Trump a "Damaged Human Being...To Be Shunned"
7:34 AM PDT 10/7/2016 by Hilary Lewis
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/da...k_20161007

[Image: gettyimages-499360592.jpg]
Ron Hoskins/Getty Images
David Letterman
(it looks like David has been damaged too, particularly in his hair)

The former 'Late Show' host also says that Hillary Clinton's campaign using a clip from the GOP candidate's 2012 appearance, "made me a wealthy man."

Donald Trump was a frequent guest on David Letterman's Late Show in the years before his current presidential campaign. But Letterman stepped down from his position as host of the CBS late-night show before the real estate mogul announced his Republican bid for president. In the early days of Trump's campaign, when the candidate's outlandish comments were still seen by many as a source of amusement, Letterman jokingly lamented retiring before he was able to partake in the late-night comedy gift of Trump's run.

But now that Trump is the Republican nominee for president, Letterman no longer finds him funny, calling his behavior that of a "damaged human being" and saying his reluctance to apologize for seemingly offensive comments and acts makes him "a person to be shunned."

"I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time and I always thought he was exactly what New York City needed to have: the big, blowhard billionaire. 'By God, I’m Donald Trump and I date models and I put up buildings, and everything is gold.' Nobody took him seriously, and people loved him when he would come on the show. I would make fun of his hair, I would call him a slumlord, I would make fun of his ties. And he could just take a punch like nothing. He was the perfect guest," Letterman tells the New York Times in an interview tied to his involvement in the National Geographic series Years of Living Dangerously.

But now, Letterman says, he's been disturbed by how Trump has continued to offend without anyone stopping him. Letterman indicates he was particularly turned off when Trump appeared to mock a reporter with a disability.

"Right out of the box, he goes after immigrants and how they’re drug dealers and they’re rapists. And everybody swallows hard. And they think, oh, well, somebody’ll take him aside and say, 'Don, don’t do that.' But it didn’t happen," Letterman continues. "And then, I can remember him doing an impression, behind a podium, of a reporter for The New York Times who has a congenital disorder. And then I thought, if this was somebody else — if this was a member of your family or a next-door neighbor, a guy at work — you would immediately distance yourself from that person. And that’s what I thought would happen. Because if you can do that in a national forum, that says to me that you are a damaged human being. If you can do that and not apologize, you’re a person to be shunned."

Letterman thinks Trump will still "be crushed in the general election," citing and supporting a prediction made by The Times' David Brooks.

Letterman also seems to call for people to stop giving attention to Trump, referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's brief dispute with the candidate. "Kids, if you turn off the light, the moths will stop coming," Letterman says.

The former Late Show host adds that if he still had a talk show and Trump agreed to appear as a guest, "I would have gone right after him."

"I would have said something like, 'Hey, nice to see you. Now, let me ask you: What gives you the right to make fun of a human who is less fortunate, physically, than you are?' And maybe that’s where it would have ended," Letterman said. "Because I don’t know anything about politics. I don’t know anything about trade agreements. I don’t know anything about China devaluing the yuan. But if you see somebody who’s not behaving like any other human you’ve known, that means something. They need an appointment with a psychiatrist. They need a diagnosis and they need a prescription."

It's worth pointing out, though, that while Jimmy Fallon was criticized for going easy on Trump in the candidate's recent appearance on Fallon's Tonight Show, Trump has seemed to avoid programs hosted by comedians who have been more critical, like Seth Meyers' Late Night and Stephen Colbert's Late Show, with the candidate just making one appearance on Colbert last year. So perhaps Trump wouldn't have given Letterman the chance to go after him.

Still, while Letterman's off late night, his show has been a part of the current presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton's team using a 2012 appearance by Trump on Letterman's Late Show in a campaign ad.

On that, Letterman said, laughing, "It made me a wealthy man." He then added, seriously, "I was flattered. I was pleased. I felt like I still have a small voice in this. I thought it was good."
Trump thinks illegal immigrants are streaming into America in order to vote against him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...r-to-vote/
Letterman is rocking the Old Wise Man beard very well!