What happened to the 6 million raised by Trump

[gotsnowgotslush]

What happened to the 6 million dollars that Trump is boasting about ?


"...money raised during an event for veterans was donated to the Donald J. Trump Foundation."

Slopes examined the claim-

Claim: The donations raised during a benefit event for veterans went to Donald J.Trump's personal foundation instead of veteran's charities.

Slopes declares Mixture


What is true: The money raised during a Donald Trump hosted event for veterans was donated to the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

snopes.com


Donald Trump Foundation for Vets ?


donaldtrumpforvets dot com sends the donation directly to Donald J.Trump Foundation.

Redirected ?


"...potential donors were skeptical, however, as the receiving entity was listed as the Donald J. Trump Foundation and not a veterans charity."


VoteVets also questioned the sincerity of Trump’s interest in veterans, pointing out that his website is “light on details” when it comes to what he would do for veterans.
“Your so-called veterans’ plan on your website is a joke,” VoteVets’ chair and Iraq War veteran Jon Soltz said in a statement addressed to Trump. “It’s pathetic.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/28/3743681/gop-veterans-props/

The New Jersey veterans were sent a Trump bumper sticker, but did not receive any of the funds.

gsgs comment-

How much of the six million went to veterans that need help ?

Certainly, not to the vets that stood up to Trump, and told him not to send them any money. They did not like being used by Trump, and they told him so.


Trump gave the check to the Puppy Jake Foundation during a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa, with Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr.
Three dogs and Puppy Jake representatives came onstage to receive the donation.

“With $100,000, we will be able to raise five dogs,” a representative said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...es-100k-to-veterans-organization-working-with


September 2015 Trump held an "event" for a veterans' charity that isn't really a charity.

Remember Rachel Maddow's report about "Veterans for a Strong America" back in September?


That was the "veterans group" Donald Trump was supposedly raising money for on a decommissioned battleship out here in California. Except they aren't a tax-exempt organization anymore.

So here we have an organization which is run by a guy formerly associated with the former director of the Koch-backed Concerned Veterans for America, which benefitted from a Donald Trump appearance on a battleship and no longer enjoys tax-exempt status.


http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/trumps-anti-debate-event-tonight-raising



Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump about his supposed new found love for veterans' groups and an article in Forbes Magazine criticizing him for the fact that over the years, he's given a lot more money to the Clinton Foundation than he has to veterans.

Trump pretty well shrugged it off and chalked it up to him being a businessman at the time rather than a politician. His followers aren't likely to care in the primary race, but I have to wonder if the hypocrisy might finally come back to bite him in a general election if he ends up winning the Republican nomination.



http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/trump-blows-criticism-over-donations


Now, it is veteran related charities that will receive money from Trump ?

 

[someoneyouknow]

What happened to the 6 million dollars that Trump is boasting about ?

You mean Trump has flip-flopped and lied again? Say it ain't so!

 

[Iceprincess12]

I like snopes, so I made it a quarter way through your article this time-I just read the word snopes

If he did anything illegal, he will have tons of people after his head. If it was just unsavory, then show me a high profile charity that really gives all it's money to those in need. I don't support Trump but apply the standards to everyone equally.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't support Trump but apply the standards to everyone equally.

Well, no, not under the circumstances. Not everyone is running for president and not even used this as a very public "stick it to you" in not showing up for the debate.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Well, no, not under the circumstances. Not everyone is running for president and not even used this as a very public "stick it to you" in not showing up for the debate.

Why does any of that matter? The reason people get away with corrupt behavior is that we allow it by making excuses.

If he raised money for his charity and it didn't go to his charity, is that wrong? That is the relevant question. If you don't care about charities that do this because they are not running for president or wagged their finger at you...then you don't care about the issue. You care about the "stick it to you" which is nothing.

Pull your moral jacket tighter and hold on, who knows what color the public will decide you should wear next.

 

[sr71plt]

Why does any of that matter? The reason people get away with corrupt behavior is that we allow it by making excuses.

If he raised money for his charity and it didn't go to his charity, is that wrong? That is the relevant question. If you don't care about charities that do this because they are not running for president or wagged their finger at you...then you don't care about the issue. You care about the "stick it to you" which is nothing.

Pull your moral jacket tighter and hold on, who knows what color the public will decide you should wear next.

I think I gave two very good reasons why it matters. And, yes, of course the question of where the money went should be pursued. I didn't post otherwise (it seemed like you were giving an excuse for him). I didn't post a damn thing about not pursuing everyone who did it. You posted that him doing it was no different. That's where we disagree. Under the circumstances, his is a much more public and "In your face" "doing it" and should be pursued hard and immediately, I believe, for the reasons I've already given.

I don't know what that other gobblygook you're trying to lay on me means or how it has any relevance here--seems a lot of mistaken assumptions to me. So, maybe you should just stop that.

 

[Iceprincess12]

I think I gave two very good reasons why it matters. And, yes, of course the question of where the money went should be pursued. I didn't post otherwise (it seemed like you were giving an excuse for him). I didn't post a damn thing about not pursuing everyone who did it. You posted that him doing it was no different. That's where we disagree. Under the circumstances, his is a much more public and "In your face" "doing it" and should be pursued hard and immediately, I believe, for the reasons I've already given.

I don't know what that other gobblygook you're trying to lay on me means or how it has any relevance here--seems a lot of mistaken assumptions to me. So, maybe you should just stop that.

Ok...

 

[dan_c00000]

If he raised money for his charity and it didn't go to his charity, is that wrong?

In this case, it would be because Trump told everyone it was going to veterans. Plus, as you well know, when you donate to a charity money often goes into a black hole and even well meaning groups (Wounded Warrior Project is a good recent example) wind up doing whatever they want with it.

 

[Iceprincess12]

In this case, it would be because Trump told everyone it was going to veterans. Plus, as you well know, when you donate to a charity money often goes into a black hole and even well meaning groups (Wounded Warrior Project is a good recent example) wind up doing whatever they want with it.

I know. That's why I don't donate to any national charities. Every year our grocery stores have local food drives for the food bank, thanksgiving turkeys and the shelters are always accepting donations (people and animal).

I have no problem with punishing Trump for his charity. I'm saying this fake outrage, when charities scam people every day, needs to stop. Where are all the posts on United way and how little money goes to help anyone or investigating firemans fundraising, or...it's a headline, it's the outrage of the moment.

Did you guys really believe that Trump was an above the board businessman? I don't know why anyone is surprised at all. Trump is about money, period. Let's see how outraged you guys are next month when this is forgotten. That will be the test of your "bandwagon" feelings.

I don't even have a problem with flavor of the month issues, just recognize that's what they are. Your feelings are as deep as the issue is long

 

[renard_ruse]

I hope he buys himself a nice new fleet of airplanes or something nice for himself with it.

 

[sr71plt]

Did you guys really believe that Trump was an above the board businessman? I don't know why anyone is surprised at all.

Who here has posted that he's an above-the-board-businessman? Who has expressed any surprise he would manage to soak up the money himself?

Oh, other than RR, who posted as I was composing this.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Who here has posted that he's an above-the-board-businessman? Who has expressed any surprise he would manage to soak up the money himself?

Oh, other than RR, who posted as I was composing this.

Didn't I already say "ok" to you?

Fine, teabag me while I'm down as well...

 

[sr71plt]

Didn't I already say "ok" to you?

Fine, teabag me while I'm down as well...

Well, you sort of just ignored that and went right on to ascribe positions to folks that you apparently can't substantiate. So, it wasn't really an OK--it was ascribing positions to people who you can't show take those positions.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Well, you sort of just ignored that and went right on to ascribe positions to folks that you apparently can't substantiate. So, it wasn't really an OK--it was ascribing positions to people who you can't show take those positions.

Still teabagging? Can I get a sip after?

 

[sr71plt]

Still teabagging? Can I get a sip after?

Still not responding to the issue? And what has anything I posted to do with teabagging? Trying to demonize much? Still trying to pound this Eleanor Roosevelt socialist round peg into a teabagger square hole? My, that's noble of you.

I questioned the claims you posted. Why are you personally attacking me as a teabagger for questioning your claims of what other people have either posted or not?

 

[Iceprincess12]

Still not responding to the issue? And what has anything I posted to do with teabagging? Trying to demonize much? Still trying to pound this Eleanor Roosevelt socialist round peg into a teabagger square hole? My, that's noble of you.

I questioned the claims you posted. Why are you personally attacking me as a teabagger for questioning your claims of what other people have either posted or not?

Still trying to pound this Eleanor Roosevelt socialist round peg into a teabagger square hole? My, that's noble of you.

I think I just fell in love with you



*Researching slacktivism (I'll get back to you)

Teabagging...I didn't know you were gay. In warcraft when someone is dead, we like to teabag their corpse until they come back. Usually friends do it as the ultimate sign of gloating. Not that you consider me a friend, but since I said "ok" I thought you wanted to gloat more.

Even if I did know you were gay, I wouldn't have thought of it in any other context than warcraft and would have still used it. If you need an apology for it, let me know. I honestly don't know if you are offended or not.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I know. That's why I don't donate to any national charities. Every year our grocery stores have local food drives for the food bank, thanksgiving turkeys and the shelters are always accepting donations (people and animal).

I have no problem with punishing Trump for his charity. I'm saying this fake outrage, when charities scam people every day, needs to stop. Where are all the posts on United way and how little money goes to help anyone or investigating firemans fundraising, or...it's a headline, it's the outrage of the moment.

Did you guys really believe that Trump was an above the board businessman? I don't know why anyone is surprised at all. Trump is about money, period. Let's see how outraged you guys are next month when this is forgotten. That will be the test of your "bandwagon" feelings.

I don't even have a problem with flavor of the month issues, just recognize that's what they are. Your feelings are as deep as the issue is long

Charities are big business with riches for those at the top of the organization. I expect for much of the money Trump collected to stick to the sides of his pockets. Its what usually happens. Maybe the lesson is not to expect better, and donate your money where it does real good.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Charities are big business with riches for those at the top of the organization. I expect for much of the money Trump collected to stick to the sides of his pockets. Its what usually happens. Maybe the lesson is not to expect better, and donate your money where it does real good.

I wish people would actually care where their money goes. Even donations can be given to places where people that need them get them. Some food banks take donation items, like clothes, that they give away for free instead of making money off of them like goodwill. Churches and of course the shelters.

Money is easier to give than time. I would much rather donate than volunteer (I have done it before) but taking a few minutes to stop the automatic charity deductions from your paycheck and instead finding a local place that needs it, is worth it. You get the same warm fuzzies and you know that your dollar bought a full dollar of food, not .85.

 

[dan_c00000]

Did you guys really believe that Trump was an above the board businessman? I don't know why anyone is surprised at all. Trump is about money, period. Let's see how outraged you guys are next month when this is forgotten. That will be the test of your "bandwagon" feelings.

You're preaching to the choir on that one with me. I've actually posted before on how private charities are busy doing the work government should be doing.

 

[sr71plt]

You're preaching to the choir on that one with me. I've actually posted before on how private charities are busy doing the work government should be doing.

I particularly "like" how government has decided that the homeless and hungry are the church's problem to take care of.

 

[phrodeau]

Six million? There's another association with Hitler.

 

[Iceprincess12]

You're preaching to the choir on that one with me. I've actually posted before on how private charities are busy doing the work government should be doing.

If we put aside the fact that the gov't has specific duties it is responsible for as well as the money the gov't has is not it's money, it's ours, we can look at this from a very practical point of view.

Local men and women that work with people needing charity or assistance know the needs better than people who do not.

Food given to hungry people fills a basic requirement for food, clothes given do the same. Money given to people that need it is not tracked and is not a basic requirement for living. People need

Food
Water
Shelter

We can skew the debate and talk about needs in our country vs needs in a 3rd world country but if you pass by a hungry child shivering under a bridge and you have a hot tasty rolleyes mcdonalds extra super special value meal in your hand...would you choose to give her $5 or your food? This mindset that money is the solution is why charities are big businesses. The gov't will throw $5 to the child, it doesn't have the ability or resources to help individuals. A local man or woman from the food bank is going to feed the child and start the process of medical help, clothing, finding parents, finding support. When our country airdrops supplies to 3rd world countries, do we drop boxes of money? No, because it's not what starving people need. It doesn't matter that they don't have Apu's minimart next door to shop at. Starving babies need food. Starving adults need food. They don't eat money. (Yes, I know money would be stolen, just like the food is and the airdrops are ineffective and a waste of resources since it doesn't go to those in need...hey wait a minute, even when the gov't tries to fulfill a basic need, food, it still fails-surprised face)

Does the local charity need money to do this? Of course, but even then some money is often used to pay the electricity bills, gas for cars, rent for buildings, there may or may not be petty cash, so on. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. The gov't is still inefficient in giving out this money. It should be given to the states and then passed onto cities who can control the distrubution of funds and track results better (not necessarily well) than the gov't.

This could be a huge discussion and is a sidetrack from the Donald Trump issue but I do not believe it's the governments job to fund charities. People at the local level can help individuals. The gov't is not set up for individuals, it's purpose is to serve our country as a whole.

 

[sr71plt]

It's government's responsibility to address the issues of homelessness and hunger in society. It isn't a question of giving money to charities. It's a question of preventing and/or minimizing the issue in society to begin with. It's the responsibility of all, not that of a subset of all. And when you get into the realm of who is "all" in a society, you are talking about government. You also are talking efficiencies of scale. I don't agree with "the government can't do it cheaper." They can--that's why your bridge club isn't contracting to buy a battle tank.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Tonight's episode of Greater Boston featured IMHO with
Jim Braude

$57,000.00 was donated to veterans in the past by Donald Trump.
2009 -2013


(gsgs comment- a bit stingy and uncharitable for a billionaire.)

Slopes has a list of 22 veterans charities that are slated to be given funds.
There is no list of when the funds were given, or how much each charity was given.

The list includes small veterans charities that would have modest requests.


The exception is the Puppy Jake Foundation, where $ 100,000.00 was listed.

CNN analysis of the Donald J. Trump Foundation's charitable contributions between 2010 and 2014 -- the five most recent years publicly available -- reveals that the foundation funneled only a small slice of its charitable donations to veterans' groups.

Of the Foundation's $5 million in charitable contributions, it donated just $77,000 to nine veterans' organizations, or 1.5% of its total contributions.



http://m.wcvb.com/politics/trump-campaign-silent-on-veterans-groups-receiving-funds/37694864

 

[Iceprincess12]

It's government's responsibility to address the issues of homelessness and hunger in society. It isn't a question of giving money to charities. It's a question of preventing and/or minimizing the issue in society to begin with. It's the responsibility of all, not that of a subset of all. And when you get into the realm of who is "all" in a society, you are talking about government. You also are talking efficiencies of scale. I don't agree with "the government can't do it cheaper." They can--that's why your bridge club isn't contracting to buy a battle tank.

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you.

"I think I gave two very good reasons why it matters."

Not everyone is running for president and not even used this as a very public "stick it to you" in not showing up for the debate.

I went back and looked at a lot of your posts. You have very little to say about any issue, here or on the gb and basically spend your two comments per thread (that was the usual number of replies per thread of the sampling I read) picking some part of a response and changing the conversation. I found no threads where you had any opinion other than the "easy to regurgitate baby food" that your party affiliation requires you to puke up (again taken from the threads I looked at). I will indulge you with a response for this issue and if you have something of value worth responding to, I will.

Having said that, I troll as well, but mine are much more obvious. I make a distinction between comments that I find entertaining and comments that I believe in. From what I have seen, you don't believe in anything.

You think you gave two good reasons why this issue matters and I already gave you my response to those.

If you don't care about charities that do this because they are not running for president or wagged their finger at you...then you don't care about the issue. You care about the "stick it to you" which is nothing.

We have a difference of opinion on this. For the follow up where you wanted me to cite an example of someone declaring that Trump is an above the board business man or that anyone was surprised that he did this, I don't have any quotes for you. I was making a general statement based on what I have noticed about threads started in this forum. Issues designed to inflame and incite controversy or a response are generally the ones posted. If this was a non-issue for everyone then the thread would have been ignored.

My "you" was in a general sense as well. If I wanted to direct a comment at someone in particular I would have no problems mentioning them. I did quote Dan on that comment, but it wasn't directed towards him. I think he understood the rhetorical nature of my question.

Finally (on this subject) my initial comment did not say that Trump shouldn't be punished. Instead of going after people you dislike, go after the issues fairly. Stop picking causes based on who it can hurt and pick causes you actually care about.

Since you haven't asked for a teabag apology, I will assume you were not offended.