MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Republicans 2016
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
...until legislative amnesty enacted.
Marco Rubio To Jorge Ramos: I Will Keep Obama's First Executive Amnesty In Place Until Legislative Amnesty Enacted - Breitbart
Yeah, I would argue that Cruz is a much stronger conservative in many respects, if not all. Something about Cruz makes me distrust him and dislike him (it may be the atheist in me though, to be honest).
He's a religious nut job.
Not sure if I should post this in this section versus the Democratic one, but it applies to fiscal conservatives. I was talking to other members and as flenser had pointed out (being a more libertarian-leaning voter, much like me), Sanders may be the safest bet for libertarians because Congress should reign in any socialist excesses he may propose and he isn't going to drag us into unnecessary foreign conflicts. He wants to destroy cronyism and I do believe the problem with our economy isn't capitalism, but cronyism. After listening to the guy, he is about as socialist as every other democrat (I'm assuming this is what he means by "democratic" socialist) and doesn't want to end free market capitalism, and he doesn't want to end private property rights by turning private property rights over to government (which would never fly). I had a lot of misconceptions about the man early on, myself, and when I heard socialist, I immediately assumed he was a full blown socialist that would want to turn over things like private property rights, to government. With all that said, here is a debate I saw amongst libertarians who argued why Sanders may be the safest bet for libertarian voters (and hell this may apply in some respects to the Donald as well, but I honestly can't tell where Trump stands on a number of issues, I can only go by the things he is saying or has said in the past). Not saying I agree entirely with what is said below, but it does have truth to it.
Why libertarians should vote for Bernie Sanders if the following conditions are met
Assume the following conditions are met:
1. A clear indication the republican party will continue to retain their strong majority in congress
2. Bernie Sanders is the democratic nominee for president
3. Rand Paul is not the republican nominee for president
Provided these conditions are met, I suggest we libertarians swallow the hard pill and vote for Bernie Sanders. If he wins, I believe it will be largely beneficial for this country for the following reasons:
1. The federal government will be balanced between a republican congress and a democratic executive administration
2. Bernie Sanders will not likely be able to get any of his "socialist" programs passed in the republican-controlled congress
3. Bernie Sanders will likely veto most of the republican wasteful and draconian legislation
4. Bernie Sanders will likely lead a positive shift in executive and foreign policy that is sorely needed (e.g. end the drug war, reduce the military industrial complex, etc.).
Granted, Bernie Sanders will NOT be a perfect president, and the above may be unrealistic. However, out of all of the other candidates running for president on the two major party tickets, Bernie is our best bet for a controlled, restrained, and balanced government (provided the 3 conditions above are met). If you ask me why not the LP candidate, I will say to you that until we change our electoral system and cultural attitudes regarding the two-party system, continuing to vote for the LP candidate will be futile. I strongly support a shift away from the two-party system and am open to multiple parties, but I believe our votes are not enough to change the system. You need to change many things about the electoral process in order to pave the way for a multi-party system.
Your thoughts?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticsannotatedbible.com%2Findex.htm
Re: Why libertarians should vote for Bernie Sanders if the following conditions are met
"I agree! Sure, he's not the perfect libertarian candidate many of us would want, but IMHO he's the best main-party politician I've found in my lifetime. For the first time ever I will consider voting for one of the main parties if he gets the nomination. Neither the Dems nor the GOP are financially conservative, so you have to decide, should that money be spent on helping Americans or lining the pockets of the mega rich and fueling foreign invasions? I'd rather have the former. Socially Bernie is mostly Libertarian, which I will take any day over the social fascism from the GOP.
People are getting really excited about Bernie, and nobody on either side is excited about Hillary. I truly hope the Dems don't force her on us."
-I can't help but agree with a lot of what is presented above. I have held similar sentiments for some months now, without ever reading any material like this. So I believe this may be a common rationale amongst libertarian-leaning voters.
Why libertarians should vote for Bernie Sanders if the following conditions are met
Assume the following conditions are met:
1. A clear indication the republican party will continue to retain their strong majority in congress
2. Bernie Sanders is the democratic nominee for president
3. Rand Paul is not the republican nominee for president
Provided these conditions are met, I suggest we libertarians swallow the hard pill and vote for Bernie Sanders. If he wins, I believe it will be largely beneficial for this country for the following reasons:
1. The federal government will be balanced between a republican congress and a democratic executive administration
2. Bernie Sanders will not likely be able to get any of his "socialist" programs passed in the republican-controlled congress
3. Bernie Sanders will likely veto most of the republican wasteful and draconian legislation
4. Bernie Sanders will likely lead a positive shift in executive and foreign policy that is sorely needed (e.g. end the drug war, reduce the military industrial complex, etc.).
Granted, Bernie Sanders will NOT be a perfect president, and the above may be unrealistic. However, out of all of the other candidates running for president on the two major party tickets, Bernie is our best bet for a controlled, restrained, and balanced government (provided the 3 conditions above are met). If you ask me why not the LP candidate, I will say to you that until we change our electoral system and cultural attitudes regarding the two-party system, continuing to vote for the LP candidate will be futile. I strongly support a shift away from the two-party system and am open to multiple parties, but I believe our votes are not enough to change the system. You need to change many things about the electoral process in order to pave the way for a multi-party system.
Your thoughts?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticsannotatedbible.com%2Findex.htm
Re: Why libertarians should vote for Bernie Sanders if the following conditions are met
"I agree! Sure, he's not the perfect libertarian candidate many of us would want, but IMHO he's the best main-party politician I've found in my lifetime. For the first time ever I will consider voting for one of the main parties if he gets the nomination. Neither the Dems nor the GOP are financially conservative, so you have to decide, should that money be spent on helping Americans or lining the pockets of the mega rich and fueling foreign invasions? I'd rather have the former. Socially Bernie is mostly Libertarian, which I will take any day over the social fascism from the GOP.
People are getting really excited about Bernie, and nobody on either side is excited about Hillary. I truly hope the Dems don't force her on us."
-I can't help but agree with a lot of what is presented above. I have held similar sentiments for some months now, without ever reading any material like this. So I believe this may be a common rationale amongst libertarian-leaning voters.
Last edited:
Why Trump and Sanders Share a Mandate for Universal Health Care
The Fiscal Times ^ | 02/04/2016 | By Eric Pianin
Posted on February 4, 2016 at 1:07:13 PM EST by SeekAndFind
GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump says Sen. Ted Cruz is a "total liar" for labeling him an advocate of expanded Obamacare or universal national health care along the lines being touted by democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential contest.
During an appearance on ABC's This Week on Sunday Trump insisted he would dismantle the Affordable Care Act if he is elected president and stressed that he doesn't favor a "single payer" universal government program that essentially would provide Medicare coverage for all.
Yet despite the blustery real estate tycoon's protests about Cruz's characterizations, Trump espoused a form of national healthcare coverage that would include the 33 million Americans who still are not covered by Obamacare. Without providing any specifics during his televised appearance, Trump vowed to "work something out" that sounded suspiciously like a distant cousin to Sanders' single-payer concept.
"If somebody has no money and they're lying in the middle of the street and they're dying, I'm going to take care of that person," Trump said. When chief anchor George Stephanopoulos pressed the billionaire businessman to describe how he would accomplish that, Trump said he would "work something out."
"We're going to work with our hospitals," he said. "We're going to work with our doctors. We've got to do something. You can't have a -- a small percentage of our economy, because they're down and out, have absolutely no protection so they end up dying from, you know, what you could have a simple procedure or even a pill. You can't do that."
"We'll work something out," Trump went on. "That doesn't mean single payer."
"And if this means I lose an election, that's fine, because, frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country. We can't let them die on the sidewalks of New York or the sidewalks of Iowa or anywhere else."
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll found that 58 percent of Americans support enactment of a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded form of Medicare, although Democrats are far more enamored of that approach than Republicans are. The downside of that approach, of course, is that Medicare spending is growing out of control, according to a new Congressional Budget Office analysis.
And any move in that direction would necessitate trillions of dollars in new taxes over the coming decade, just when CBO warns the deficit and debt will begin to surge again.
Trump has raised his idea of health insurance coverage for all in the past, although he appears to be talking about a far more complicated approach than simply extending Medicare-style coverage to everyone. During an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes last September, Trump said that Obamacare was "a disaster" -- with excessive premiums and deductibles -- and that he would replace it with a program that would "take care of everybody."
"Everybody's got to be covered," he said. "This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, "No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But . . . I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not."
As for how to finance his ambitious proposals, Trump said, "The government's going to pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything."
This is all too much for Cruz, who is struggling to overtake Trump in tonight's GOP caucuses. "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctors," Cruz said yesterday during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.
While Cruz's assertion is a gross distortion of where Trump and the two Democrats stand on health care reform in general, there are clearly some similarities, as Politifact noted today. .
For instance, Trump, Clinton and Sanders all favor allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices to bring down the cost. However, Clinton opposes Sanders' $1.8 trillion idea for expanding the Medicare program to include all Americans, financed by major tax increases. Instead, she advocates building on the Affordable Care Act and containing unreasonable increases in rates and fees.
Trump once voiced admiration for single-payer, but he hasn't presented a health care plan beyond his sketchy proposals. It's also true that the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 presented a national health care plan that required, "All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care," and using car insurance as a model, "Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance." Trump has suggested a system in which insurance companies considered financially stable can offer plans across state lines -- a popular idea among Republicans. He also called for the federal government to negotiate with hospitals and drug companies for lower prices and to provide coverage for poorer Americans.
Donald Trump on Health Care
Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone
He pledged to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "without cutting it to the bone" by "making the country rich again." He vowed to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better, although he didn't provide any details.
Trump made no effort to woo mainstream GOP elected officials. He remarked, "I am a Republican, and I am disappointed with our Republican politicians because they let our president get away with absolute murder."
-Source: Des Moines Register on 2015 Iowa Freedom Summit , Jan 24, 2015
Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight
Obamacare can't be reformed, salvaged, or fixed. It's that bad. Obamacare has to be killed now before it grows into an even bigger mess, as it inevitably will. Obamacare takes full effect in 2014. If it's not repealed before then, it will be more than just another failed government entitlement program--it will be the trillion-ton weight that finally takes down our economy forever.
Obamacare is a heat-seeking missile that will destroy jobs & small businesses; it will explode health-care costs; and it will lead to health care that is far less innovative than it is today. Every argument that you'd make against socialism you can make against socialized health care, and any candidate who isn't 100% committed to scrapping Obamacare is not someone America should elect president. Repealing Obamacare may be one of the most important and consequential actions our next president takes.
-Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p.121-122 , Dec 5, 2011
Increase insurance competition across state lines
Even if we elect a real president who will get tough and repeal Obamacare, we still need a plan to bring down health-care costs and make health-care insurance more affordable for everyone. It starts with increasing competition between insurance companies. Competition makes everything better and more affordable.
One way to infuse more competition into the market is to let citizens purchase health-care plans across state lines.
This could be easily accomplished if Congress got some guts and did the right thing. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress control over interstate commerce. But for whatever reason, the Congress has never exercised this power regarding health insurance. They need to.
-Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p.131 , Dec 5, 2011
We must have universal health care
I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.
-Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.206-208 & 218 , Jul 2, 2000
The Fiscal Times ^ | 02/04/2016 | By Eric Pianin
Posted on February 4, 2016 at 1:07:13 PM EST by SeekAndFind
GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump says Sen. Ted Cruz is a "total liar" for labeling him an advocate of expanded Obamacare or universal national health care along the lines being touted by democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential contest.
During an appearance on ABC's This Week on Sunday Trump insisted he would dismantle the Affordable Care Act if he is elected president and stressed that he doesn't favor a "single payer" universal government program that essentially would provide Medicare coverage for all.
Yet despite the blustery real estate tycoon's protests about Cruz's characterizations, Trump espoused a form of national healthcare coverage that would include the 33 million Americans who still are not covered by Obamacare. Without providing any specifics during his televised appearance, Trump vowed to "work something out" that sounded suspiciously like a distant cousin to Sanders' single-payer concept.
"If somebody has no money and they're lying in the middle of the street and they're dying, I'm going to take care of that person," Trump said. When chief anchor George Stephanopoulos pressed the billionaire businessman to describe how he would accomplish that, Trump said he would "work something out."
"We're going to work with our hospitals," he said. "We're going to work with our doctors. We've got to do something. You can't have a -- a small percentage of our economy, because they're down and out, have absolutely no protection so they end up dying from, you know, what you could have a simple procedure or even a pill. You can't do that."
"We'll work something out," Trump went on. "That doesn't mean single payer."
"And if this means I lose an election, that's fine, because, frankly, we have to take care of the people in our country. We can't let them die on the sidewalks of New York or the sidewalks of Iowa or anywhere else."
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll found that 58 percent of Americans support enactment of a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded form of Medicare, although Democrats are far more enamored of that approach than Republicans are. The downside of that approach, of course, is that Medicare spending is growing out of control, according to a new Congressional Budget Office analysis.
And any move in that direction would necessitate trillions of dollars in new taxes over the coming decade, just when CBO warns the deficit and debt will begin to surge again.
Trump has raised his idea of health insurance coverage for all in the past, although he appears to be talking about a far more complicated approach than simply extending Medicare-style coverage to everyone. During an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes last September, Trump said that Obamacare was "a disaster" -- with excessive premiums and deductibles -- and that he would replace it with a program that would "take care of everybody."
"Everybody's got to be covered," he said. "This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, "No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But . . . I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not."
As for how to finance his ambitious proposals, Trump said, "The government's going to pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything."
This is all too much for Cruz, who is struggling to overtake Trump in tonight's GOP caucuses. "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctors," Cruz said yesterday during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.
While Cruz's assertion is a gross distortion of where Trump and the two Democrats stand on health care reform in general, there are clearly some similarities, as Politifact noted today. .
For instance, Trump, Clinton and Sanders all favor allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices to bring down the cost. However, Clinton opposes Sanders' $1.8 trillion idea for expanding the Medicare program to include all Americans, financed by major tax increases. Instead, she advocates building on the Affordable Care Act and containing unreasonable increases in rates and fees.
Trump once voiced admiration for single-payer, but he hasn't presented a health care plan beyond his sketchy proposals. It's also true that the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 presented a national health care plan that required, "All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care," and using car insurance as a model, "Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance." Trump has suggested a system in which insurance companies considered financially stable can offer plans across state lines -- a popular idea among Republicans. He also called for the federal government to negotiate with hospitals and drug companies for lower prices and to provide coverage for poorer Americans.
Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone
He pledged to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid "without cutting it to the bone" by "making the country rich again." He vowed to repeal Obama's Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better, although he didn't provide any details.
Trump made no effort to woo mainstream GOP elected officials. He remarked, "I am a Republican, and I am disappointed with our Republican politicians because they let our president get away with absolute murder."
-Source: Des Moines Register on 2015 Iowa Freedom Summit , Jan 24, 2015
Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight
Obamacare can't be reformed, salvaged, or fixed. It's that bad. Obamacare has to be killed now before it grows into an even bigger mess, as it inevitably will. Obamacare takes full effect in 2014. If it's not repealed before then, it will be more than just another failed government entitlement program--it will be the trillion-ton weight that finally takes down our economy forever.
Obamacare is a heat-seeking missile that will destroy jobs & small businesses; it will explode health-care costs; and it will lead to health care that is far less innovative than it is today. Every argument that you'd make against socialism you can make against socialized health care, and any candidate who isn't 100% committed to scrapping Obamacare is not someone America should elect president. Repealing Obamacare may be one of the most important and consequential actions our next president takes.
-Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p.121-122 , Dec 5, 2011
Increase insurance competition across state lines
Even if we elect a real president who will get tough and repeal Obamacare, we still need a plan to bring down health-care costs and make health-care insurance more affordable for everyone. It starts with increasing competition between insurance companies. Competition makes everything better and more affordable.
One way to infuse more competition into the market is to let citizens purchase health-care plans across state lines.
This could be easily accomplished if Congress got some guts and did the right thing. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress control over interstate commerce. But for whatever reason, the Congress has never exercised this power regarding health insurance. They need to.
-Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p.131 , Dec 5, 2011
We must have universal health care
I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.
Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.
-Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.206-208 & 218 , Jul 2, 2000
- Click here for definitions & background information on Health Care.
- Click here for VoteMatch responses by Donald Trump.
- Click here for AmericansElect.org quiz by Donald Trump.
- http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump_MyO.htm for MyOcracy.org quiz by Donald Trump.
- Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Donald Trump.
- Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Donald Trump.
Last edited:
Trump’s New Pro-Veterans Website Directs All Donations To Trump’s Personal Foundation
Rather than going directly to veterans groups, 100% of online donations on Trump's pro-veterans site will go directly to Trump's personal foundation.
JANUARY 28, 2016 By The Federalist Staff
After ducking the final Republican presidential debateheading into next week’s Iowa caucuses, GOP front-runner Donald Trump announced that he would hold his own pro-veterans event http://news.yahoo.com/trump-barrels-towards-iowa-caucus-five-days-184312976.html to raise money for veterans. Trump even set up a special website to solicit donations to help veterans.
“Honor their valor,” the website,donaldtrumpforvets.com, states. “Donate now to help our Veterans.”
The website, which is nothing more than a single page withstock photos and a credit card donation form, claims that “100% of your donations will go directly to Veterans needs.”
There’s only one problem: 100% of the money raised on the site goes directly to Donald Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, according to a disclosure listed at the bottom of the page.
“The Donald J Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization,” the disclosure reads. “An email confirmation with a summary of your donation will be sent to the email address provided above.”
Confirmation e-mails sent to individuals who contributed via the website confirm that rather than going directly to veterans, all contributions made from the site go directly to Donald Trump’s personal foundation.
“The Donald J Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and acknowledges that no goods or services were provided to you in return for your contribution,” the confirmation e-mail states. “This letter is your receipt and should be kept with your tax records.”
A separate confirmation page that loads after donations are made on the site contains the same language noting that the contribution was made to the Donald J Trump Foundation, not to a distinct veterans organization with a history of directly supporting veterans and their families.
According to the domain registry information for Trump’s site, the domain was not registered until Thursday morning. The firm that registered the domain, Florida-based Parscale Media, alsohttps://www.parscale.com/san-antonio-design-portfolio/donald-trump.
Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, does not have a history of donating much money to veterans or to veterans’ causes. According to a recent analysis of the organization’s spending history by the Weekly Standard, Trump’s non-profit donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than it did to veterans causes.
Between 2009 and 2013, Trump’s non-profit donated between $100,001 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Over the same period of time, Trump’s group gave only $57,000 to veterans groups. A 2015 analysis by Forbes noted that barely 1 percent of the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s $5.5 million worth of donations betwen 2009 and 2013 went to organizations that support military veterans:
The Donald J. Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 (the most recent year available), according to the non-profit’s 990 tax forms from those years. Of that, only $57,000 has been donated to seven organizations that directly benefit military veterans or their families, Forbes found. Wounded Warriors was not among the organizations Trump’s foundation gave to in that time period.
Forbes also found that Trump, who we estimate is worth $4.5 billion, has not made personal contributions to his foundation during the same time period. We reached out to his spokespeople for comment, but did not hear back before publishing.
Trump made waves last July when he attacked Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war who was imprisoned for years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton torture camp, for being captured by enemy troops.
“I don’t like losers,” Trump saidduring an event moderated by GOP focus group guru Frank Luntz. Trump was referring to McCain.
“But he’s a war hero,” moderator Frank Luntz interjected. “He’s a war hero!”
“He’s not a ‘war hero,’” Trump responded. “He’s a ‘war hero’ because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you.”
Rather than going directly to veterans groups, 100% of online donations on Trump's pro-veterans site will go directly to Trump's personal foundation.
JANUARY 28, 2016 By The Federalist Staff
After ducking the final Republican presidential debateheading into next week’s Iowa caucuses, GOP front-runner Donald Trump announced that he would hold his own pro-veterans event http://news.yahoo.com/trump-barrels-towards-iowa-caucus-five-days-184312976.html to raise money for veterans. Trump even set up a special website to solicit donations to help veterans.
“Honor their valor,” the website,donaldtrumpforvets.com, states. “Donate now to help our Veterans.”
The website, which is nothing more than a single page withstock photos and a credit card donation form, claims that “100% of your donations will go directly to Veterans needs.”
There’s only one problem: 100% of the money raised on the site goes directly to Donald Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, according to a disclosure listed at the bottom of the page.
“The Donald J Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization,” the disclosure reads. “An email confirmation with a summary of your donation will be sent to the email address provided above.”
Confirmation e-mails sent to individuals who contributed via the website confirm that rather than going directly to veterans, all contributions made from the site go directly to Donald Trump’s personal foundation.
“The Donald J Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and acknowledges that no goods or services were provided to you in return for your contribution,” the confirmation e-mail states. “This letter is your receipt and should be kept with your tax records.”
A separate confirmation page that loads after donations are made on the site contains the same language noting that the contribution was made to the Donald J Trump Foundation, not to a distinct veterans organization with a history of directly supporting veterans and their families.
According to the domain registry information for Trump’s site, the domain was not registered until Thursday morning. The firm that registered the domain, Florida-based Parscale Media, alsohttps://www.parscale.com/san-antonio-design-portfolio/donald-trump.
Trump’s personal non-profit foundation, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, does not have a history of donating much money to veterans or to veterans’ causes. According to a recent analysis of the organization’s spending history by the Weekly Standard, Trump’s non-profit donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than it did to veterans causes.
Between 2009 and 2013, Trump’s non-profit donated between $100,001 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Over the same period of time, Trump’s group gave only $57,000 to veterans groups. A 2015 analysis by Forbes noted that barely 1 percent of the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s $5.5 million worth of donations betwen 2009 and 2013 went to organizations that support military veterans:
The Donald J. Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 (the most recent year available), according to the non-profit’s 990 tax forms from those years. Of that, only $57,000 has been donated to seven organizations that directly benefit military veterans or their families, Forbes found. Wounded Warriors was not among the organizations Trump’s foundation gave to in that time period.
Forbes also found that Trump, who we estimate is worth $4.5 billion, has not made personal contributions to his foundation during the same time period. We reached out to his spokespeople for comment, but did not hear back before publishing.
Trump made waves last July when he attacked Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war who was imprisoned for years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton torture camp, for being captured by enemy troops.
“I don’t like losers,” Trump saidduring an event moderated by GOP focus group guru Frank Luntz. Trump was referring to McCain.
“But he’s a war hero,” moderator Frank Luntz interjected. “He’s a war hero!”
“He’s not a ‘war hero,’” Trump responded. “He’s a ‘war hero’ because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, okay? I hate to tell you.”
[For real! Not the Onion.]
Ted Cruz removes campaign ad featuring erotic film actress.
Ted Cruz removes campaign ad featuring porn actress - CNNPolitics.com
(CNN)Ted Cruz's campaign pulled a recent ad attacking Marco Rubio after it was revealed that one of its featured actors had performed in erotic films.
Titled "Conservatives Anonymous," the Cruz spot is set in a group therapy session, as a circle of men and women discuss their disappointment in having supported the Florida senator given his subsequent work on an immigration reform bill one calls "amnesty."
"Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time," softcore porn veteran Amy Lindsay tells the group before another man appears at the door in a Rubio shirt asking, "You guys have room for one more?"
The campaign removed the video from YouTube after it became aware of her background, though a web page with the "Conservatives Anonymous" branding is still live on Cruz's site.
The Cruz campaign did not immediately respond to CNN request for comment.
...
Ted Cruz removes campaign ad featuring erotic film actress.
Ted Cruz removes campaign ad featuring porn actress - CNNPolitics.com
(CNN)Ted Cruz's campaign pulled a recent ad attacking Marco Rubio after it was revealed that one of its featured actors had performed in erotic films.
Titled "Conservatives Anonymous," the Cruz spot is set in a group therapy session, as a circle of men and women discuss their disappointment in having supported the Florida senator given his subsequent work on an immigration reform bill one calls "amnesty."
"Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time," softcore porn veteran Amy Lindsay tells the group before another man appears at the door in a Rubio shirt asking, "You guys have room for one more?"
The campaign removed the video from YouTube after it became aware of her background, though a web page with the "Conservatives Anonymous" branding is still live on Cruz's site.
The Cruz campaign did not immediately respond to CNN request for comment.
...
It only took 15 years, but after hearing Donald Trump I heard the most honest thing I have ever heard a politician say. Things like this make me like the man. And no, what follows isn't a conspiracy theory but facts. And Donald Trump is right about Bush, and he is the only guy running in the GOP who seems to want to criticize the GOP and George W. Bush. Fuck it, if you want to vote Republican, vote Trump. I have a lot of respect for a guy who shames George W Bush Jr. on television for his negligence during 9/11 and the stupid idea to invade Iraq. I watched the CIA eat shit for this entire fiasco (and everything else people bitch about), but the CIA was absolutely right, they more than warned against 9/11 and they opposed the Iraq War. Despite what some guys may believe about the CIA, just know that they are people that work within an agency, that does everything in its power to help protect this homeland and our people, they provide lifesaving intel, and they (along with SOCOM) have JTFs conducting anti-terrorist operations all throughout the world to protect American people. So every time I see the CIA get slammed, I get a little bitchy about it. Even some of the negative
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Deafness Before the Storm
The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warning
By KURT EICHENWALD
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
JAVIER JAÉN BENAVIDES
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officialsattempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Deafness Before the Storm
The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warning
By KURT EICHENWALD
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
JAVIER JAÉN BENAVIDES
The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
“The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name. Going on for more than a page, the document recited much of the evidence, including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya.
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.
Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. Officials at the Counterterrorism Center of the C.I.A. grew apoplectic. On July 9, at a meeting of the counterterrorism group, one official suggested that the staff put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place, two people who were there told me in interviews. The suggestion was batted down, they said, because there would be no time to train anyone else.
That same day in Chechnya, according to intelligence I reviewed, Ibn Al-Khattab, an extremist who was known for his brutality and his links to Al Qaeda, told his followers that there would soon be very big news. Within 48 hours, an intelligence official told me, that information was conveyed to the White House, providing more data supporting the C.I.A.’s warnings. Still, the alarm bells didn’t sound.
On July 24, Mr. Bush was notified that the attack was still being readied, but that it had been postponed, perhaps by a few months. But the president did not feel the briefings on potential attacks were sufficient, one intelligence official told me, and instead asked for a broader analysis on Al Qaeda, its aspirations and its history. In response, the C.I.A. set to work on the Aug. 6 brief.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officialsattempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
Kurt Eichenwald, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a former reporter for The New York Times, is the author of “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.”
Nutcase Glenn Beck weeps and tells crowd that Ted Cruz will get them through the Rapture
Election 2016 — Republican Delegate Count
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 â Republican Delegate Count
RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 â Republican Delegate Count
[PredictWise] 2016 PRESIDENT GOP Nomination
PredictWise – PredictWise is for Informational Purposes only.
PredictWise – PredictWise is for Informational Purposes only.
The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
The time Ted Cruz defended a ban on dildos.
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
The time Ted Cruz defended a ban on dildos.
Cruz-Kasich agreement: Cruz to control prostitution, trucking, Kasich labor racketeering, gambling.
Similar threads
