Proof of Trump's charity giving elusive

[webfact]

Proof of Trump's charity giving elusive
By JEFF HORWITZ

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump, widely believed to be the wealthiest American ever to run for president, is nowhere among the ranks of the country's most generous citizens, according to an Associated Press review of his financial records and other government filings.

Trump has said he donated $102 million worth of cash and land to philanthropic and conservation organizations over the past five years. But his campaign has provided little documentation for most of these contributions, and tax filings of the Donald J. Trump foundation show Trump has made no charitable contributions to his own namesake nonprofit since 2008. Without an endowment, the fund has continued to give grants only as a result of contributions from others.

Even the $102 million would not impress the wealthy elite whom Trump counts as his peers. Billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, George Lucas and Warren Buffett have both given far more and pledged to donate most of their wealth to charity during their lifetimes.

It is possible that Trump has been donating money anonymously through avenues other than his foundation, whose tax records the AP reviewed. But pressed by the AP on the details of his contributions, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks provided a partial list of donations that appeared to correspond with the foundation's gifts — indicating that Trump may be counting other people's charitable giving as his own.

"I give to hundreds of charities and people in need of help," Trump said in an emailed response to questions from the AP about how he tallied his own philanthropy. "It is one of the things I most like doing and one of the great reasons to have made a lot of money."

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request that it identify donations that Trump himself gave. Trump has not released his own tax records even though some other presidential candidates have disclosed theirs. Such documents would likely provide a clearer picture of his giving.

Actual cash donations account for only around a tenth of the $102 million Trump says he has given in the last five years. Most of the total comes from land-related transactions. One major land donation from Trump earlier this year may result in a significant tax deduction for Trump for continuing to operate a commercial golf driving range.

Trump announced in January he was providing a land conservancy in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, with a legal promise never to develop 16 luxury homes on what is now the driving range of the Trump National Golf Course Los Angeles. But city planning documents indicate Trump had no plans to use the land for anything other but a driving range — which he will continue to do under the terms of the easement.

A possible multimillion dollar beneficiary of Trump's gift: Donald Trump. Easements — contractual limitations which formally devalue the land, even if they require no changes in its use or ownership — provide an avenue for federal tax write-offs.

By committing to use his driving range as a driving range, Trump is likely entitled to a sizable tax deduction, said Dean Zerbe, a tax attorney for Alliant Group of Houston and who previously headed an investigation into easement write-offs for the Senate Finance Committee.

"It's shocking how much you see in the way of golf easements," he said. "Are we comfortable that this is something we want to subsidize with tax policy?

Trump's foundation began in 1987 and exists to donate money to other charities. It has no staff, and its annual IRS filings have regularly listed Trump's average time spent on it as "minimal" or zero hours a week. The foundation has given out $3.6 million between 2011 and 2013, the most recent year in which its finances are available.

The overwhelming majority of its recent gifts have been made with other people's money. NBC Universal, World Wrestling Entertainment and high-end, sporting and entertainment event ticket-reseller Richard Ebers are among the largest donors; Trump made his last significant donation, of $30,000, in 2008.

Until late last year, Trump was described as an "ardent philanthropist" in a biography posted to the Trump Organization's website. That language has since been removed.

As with Trump's politics, his donations do not fit neatly within traditional ideological lines: In 2012, he donated to the Gay Men's Health Crisis — founded by gay rights activist Larry Kramer — and the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, which decries the influence of the "gay lobby" and offers support to people pushing loved ones to "seek freedom from homosexuality."

A sizable portion of Trump's giving appears to be geared toward charities prominently affiliated with celebrities or politicians. Trump has given to the Ronald Reagan Foundation and the Clinton Foundation, and has made donations to charities associated with former major league baseball manager Joe Torre, television personality Larry King and professional golf legend Arnold Palmer.

Some celebrity-backed charities have pitched controversial causes. In 2010, Trump's foundation gave $10,000 to Generation Rescue, a nonprofit run by Jenny McCarthy to champion the widely discredited theory that vaccines cause autism. Trump also gave $1,000 to the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project, an organization confounded by Tom Cruise that offered free Scientology-based cleansing to rescue workers after the 2001 terror attacks.

Trump's tax returns would provide clearer information about any philanthropy he listed as deductible. In 2011, he indicated he might release his own tax returns when President Barack Obama released his birth certificate, something the president subsequently did. Trump took credit for pressuring Obama to release the document but did not release his tax records, promising he would do so at an appropriate time.

Such returns could potentially shed light on the nature of some of Trump's noncash gifts, such as his donation of the easement on his Rancho Palos Verdes golf course. Trump's gift is to the local land conservancy, which maintains green space and undeveloped coastline owned by city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Trump's relationship with the city itself has been rocky. After years of battling with local government over a 70-foot flagpole erected without approval, and Trump's thwarted effort to have a prominent street renamed after himself, Trump sued the town of 46,000 for $100 million in 2008. He alleged it was wrongfully preventing him from building homes on land adjacent to his golf course.

The city — which has a budget of roughly one-quarter the size of Trump's legal claim — settled with Trump in 2012 on confidential terms. But Trump's plan for the driving range on which he is donating an easement has been far less contentious.

Though the land was still approved for the construction of 16 homes, Trump turned it into a driving range when he bought the property more than a decade ago, according to city planning documents. In the years since, Trump did not apply to build homes on the property, and he sought approval from the California Coastal Commission to permanently approve plans that left the land as a driving range.

"Sometimes he'd make statements, saying, 'Well, maybe I'd put homes there instead of the driving range,'" said Joel Rojas, the city's community development director. But there were never any concrete plans to build.

Trump received that approval last year, Rojas said, which prevents him even from applying to build homes on the driving range.

When Trump announced four months later that he will permanently forgo building on the range, he said the land was worth more than $25 million.

Zerbe, the former Senate lawyer, said tax deductions for such projects are unquestionably legal but noted that building homes there instead would have complicated Trump's golf plans.

"You're not going to have a golf course without a driving range," he said.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-03

[zaphod reborn]

"Trump announced in January he was providing a land conservancy in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, with a legal promise never to develop 16 luxury homes on what is now the driving range of the Trump National Golf Course Los Angeles. But city planning documents indicate Trump had no plans to use the land for anything other but a driving range — which he will continue to do under the terms of the easement."

This is in my home town. AP failed to report that the 18th hole of the golf course slid into the ocean. Trump subsequently bankrupted the golf course, one of his dozens of filed bankruptcies nationally. The golf course was built on extremely unstable land, and is adjacent to one of the world's most frequent landslide areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Bend. It would be a huge liability to develop Trump's land in any fashion, so he is donating the land for nature trails. The city would never have approved any plans to commercially develop the land. http://abc7.com/business/trump-scraps-plans-to-build-homes-at-rancho-palos-verdes-golf-course/478153/

[Pinot]

The Trump documentary he killed. Say one thing for the Donald...he's consistently been an a%$h&^@.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/trump-documentary-the-donald-suppressed-free-at-last/

[NickJ]

Nature trails in a landslide area....sign me up.

[sanuk711]

Trump has said he donated $102 million worth of cash and land to philanthropic and conservation organizations over the past five years. But his campaign has provided little documentation for most of these contributions, and tax filings of the Donald J. Trump foundation show Trump has made no charitable contributions to his own namesake nonprofit since 2008.

It is possible that Trump has been donating money anonymously through avenues other than his foundation----OP

.

That's it !---You got it, that's what he has been doing all these years---giving all his money away quietly........he's that sort of guy....he just didn't want any Kudos for it........

[arjunadawn]

One of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free Land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a social contract, a duty to others, irrespective of what new world feel good social redistributionists allege. While we always like to see people who share in the fruits of their industry not being philanthropic equally does not suggest a character flaw as well as being generous does not suggest a character asset. Yes, we do nevertheless assign some weight to charitable contribution because in elections we try to roughly outline the nature of the candidate, but the pretense that one is required (or a public perception penalty levied) to give generously is ludicrous. This inversion of Emerson-esque Self Reliance is most profoundly observed in the character of the emerging US government itself; thus we look for it in the character of the candidate- redistributing fruit! The example of the US government and the socialist policies now overlaying the original intent of government should never be an example by which to measure the person. The modern US government is an aberration to Liberty, Natural Rights, and the right of the person to enjoy and preserve the fruits of their labor.

I use the Anti Trump billionaire Soros often as an example because he is... anti Free Man, anti Free Land, and anti Freedom. Soros is every bit as related to these election based OPs as any byline in the header. Soros is hybrid wed to numerous quasi US government leftist agencies and NGOs that much of what has America aghast is his personal fruit- what he does with his billions. Soros donates large sums of his money but his crimes against humanity are legendary (the earlier Thailand financial crisis being one of countless). So, what is a man's value in relation to his charity? Ok, we can make it a litmus test but in doing so we state far more about the poverty of our minds than the charity of another.

[sfokevin]

I believe he has lumped his alimony and child support payments to his ex-wives in that $102 million figure

[Usernames]

Personally, I'd rather see Trump recycling his money back into the economy and giving everyday working people jobs, company health insurance, and places people actually want to be at, rather than "donate" money to the likes of foundations that flood US with more people, driving the population quickly to 500 million, while providing huge salaries to lawyers and aid workers that can direct the likes of illegals to crash the court system, demand free stuff, and even get quotas on TV and films.

[Headgame]

Trump doing anything anonymously? Not a chance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boon Mee]

Who gives two hoot regarding Trumps charatible controbutions, eh?

More Straw Men. Let's talk about the Border, huh. He's the only candidate who has a semblence of a plan.

Grandma Clinton sure don't...

[Scott]

Who gives two hoot regarding Trumps charatible controbutions, eh?

More Straw Men. Let's talk about the Border, huh. He's the only candidate who has a semblence of a plan.

Grandma Clinton sure don't...

I am not overly concerned about Trump's charitable contributions either, but that is the topic of this thread. There are other threads about 'grandma' Clinton and some deal with the border issues....this one centers on the charitable contributions of Mr. Trump.

[Srikcir]

You can't say Trump isn't charitable.

He has given a muskrat a home on his head for the last twenty years.

[sanuk711]

While we always like to see people who share in the fruits of their industry not being philanthropic equally does not suggest a character flaw as well as being generous does not suggest a character asset.----arjunadawn

------------------------

I think the character flaw arjunadawn, is in the fact that he is claiming to have donated $102 million worth of cash and land to philanthropic and conservation organizations, he is not taking your "legitimate" stand that one has no obligation to do this------ He is saying he has done it.

................Just can not seem to locate the recipes to show you all....................

[zaphod reborn]

Nature trails in a landslide area....sign me up.

A very telling testament to Trump's lack of attention to detail is his statement that he would have no problem standing on the golf course during one of LA's major earthquakes. It shows that Trump has never even looked at any engineering reports as to the cause of the landslide. Earthquakes have never had any affect on the landslide. The landslides only occur when there is water inundation to the soil. Over the years, this has occurred due to heavy rains (not a current problem in California), construction (there was a leaking underground pipe during the construction of the golf course) and, the major triggering event in modern times, when they tried to build a road from the top of the hills, down to the coastal road, and added a tremendous amount of wet dirt to prepare the road's pathway.

[kamahele]

One of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free Land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a social contract, a duty to others, irrespective of what new world feel good social redistributionists allege. While we always like to see people who share in the fruits of their industry not being philanthropic equally does not suggest a character flaw as well as being generous does not suggest a character asset. Yes, we do nevertheless assign some weight to charitable contribution because in elections we try to roughly outline the nature of the candidate, but the pretense that one is required (or a public perception penalty levied) to give generously is ludicrous. This inversion of Emerson-esque Self Reliance is most profoundly observed in the character of the emerging US government itself; thus we look for it in the character of the candidate- redistributing fruit! The example of the US government and the socialist policies now overlaying the original intent of government should never be an example by which to measure the person. The modern US government is an aberration to Liberty, Natural Rights, and the right of the person to enjoy and preserve the fruits of their labor.

I use the Anti Trump billionaire Soros often as an example because he is... anti Free Man, anti Free Land, and anti Freedom. Soros is every bit as related to these election based OPs as any byline in the header. Soros is hybrid wed to numerous quasi US government leftist agencies and NGOs that much of what has America aghast is his personal fruit- what he does with his billions. Soros donates large sums of his money but his crimes against humanity are legendary (the earlier Thailand financial crisis being one of countless). So, what is a man's value in relation to his charity? Ok, we can make it a litmus test but in doing so we state far more about the poverty of our minds than the charity of anot

Since the Republican Party sets itself out to be the champions of Christianity, one would think that charity would be close to their hearts...... Also, our country was founded by a group of rich, entitled white men, many of which were slave owners. They didn't believe that blacks or the native population were human beings or that women were even capable of voting. I think we've come a long way since then and mostly for the better.

Edited August 4, 2015 by kamahele

[Neurath]

Nope it's for real. You see, one of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a a duty to others. So if you are standing in your new 500 dollar shoes (shoes that you have bought with the fruits of your Free Labor) and there's some kid drowning nearby you are not in any way obligated to help that kid out and in so doing ruin your good shoes. Nor should you think that helping that drowning kid in any way is a character asset. Equally, not helping that drowning kid is in no way a character defect. This is particularly so if by helping the kid you wreck your shoes. Now, you should understand that Emmerson would most certainly have let the child die. He would have done this to ensure that the emergence of the character that has made us great (Emmersonian Self-Reliance) wasn't strangled in its infancy right next to the drowning child.

[arjunadawn]

One of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free Land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a social contract, a duty to others, irrespective of what new world feel good social redistributionists allege. While we always like to see people who share in the fruits of their industry not being philanthropic equally does not suggest a character flaw as well as being generous does not suggest a character asset. Yes, we do nevertheless assign some weight to charitable contribution because in elections we try to roughly outline the nature of the candidate, but the pretense that one is required (or a public perception penalty levied) to give generously is ludicrous. This inversion of Emerson-esque Self Reliance is most profoundly observed in the character of the emerging US government itself; thus we look for it in the character of the candidate- redistributing fruit! The example of the US government and the socialist policies now overlaying the original intent of government should never be an example by which to measure the person. The modern US government is an aberration to Liberty, Natural Rights, and the right of the person to enjoy and preserve the fruits of their labor.

I use the Anti Trump billionaire Soros often as an example because he is... anti Free Man, anti Free Land, and anti Freedom. Soros is every bit as related to these election based OPs as any byline in the header. Soros is hybrid wed to numerous quasi US government leftist agencies and NGOs that much of what has America aghast is his personal fruit- what he does with his billions. Soros donates large sums of his money but his crimes against humanity are legendary (the earlier Thailand financial crisis being one of countless). So, what is a man's value in relation to his charity? Ok, we can make it a litmus test but in doing so we state far more about the poverty of our minds than the charity of anot

Since the Republican Party sets itself out to be the champions of Christianity, one would think that charity would be close to their hearts...... Also, our country was founded by a group of rich, entitled white men, many of which were slave owners. They didn't believe that blacks or the native population were human beings or that women were even capable of voting. I think we've come a long way since then and mostly for the better.

I have no use for the republicans nor believe any party can effectively lead with its premise the representation of any religion, solely, or in large part. I understand that necessarily some pols will represent religions but the days of superstition as a guiding rule for leadership should have passed from the human cup of fear.

The founders of America were not rich slave owners because those were the only people who stood up and collectively pooled their wealth and intention to create a new, free republic- all others remaining silent. The days in reference only had such men (not women, not blacks) as those who could stand up. They were men of their days. In this regard they are accordingly judged, rightly or wrongly, by the standards of today. Doing this, however, is more a reflection of those minds of today than the men of yesterday, as armchair ethicists have the luxury of retrospect and the accumulation of generations of Americans' sorting out the sordid from the clean ideas of humanity. Thus, analyzing them critically is valid but judging them by today's standards is more a reflection of the limited intellect of those indicting rather than those indicted. Slavery was an institution. Wanna throw stones? Throw stones throughout Africa and the Middle East and upon those religion that still enjoin it today.

George Mason said “all men are born equally free and independent.” He also said "[slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers." Clearly, things are not as simple as you assert. Further clarity to such a muddled statement is attached. Without context Man can paint any manner of horror upon another. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=122 The fact remains, there are good and there are bad men. Many men in all ages rejected such institutions. You assertion also loses the context that without these men all subsequent progress in Liberty and Freedom and Conscience would have never transpired. These men gave you today by any formula. These men pledged their honor and wealth and most lost all to provide you the narrow perspective to indict them.

I think you mistake tithing for charity. Or, perhaps you mistake simony for charity? It is not clear from the post above. Public charity is a parade. It is simony. It is tainted necessarily by the participation of observers. To insist this standard is a useful tool is to betray the poverty of our own hearts. That those who seem stewed by Trump's charitable contributions also seem determined to impugn Republicans generally. I suspect, therefore, a socialist redistribution mindset sees this issue as red meat. Indeed, even the chair of the Democratic National Party cannot declare Democrats are not socialist. Charity=Wealth Redistribution

Edited August 4, 2015 by arjunadawn

[arjunadawn]

Nope it's for real. You see, one of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a a duty to others. So if you are standing in your new 500 dollar shoes (shoes that you have bought with the fruits of your Free Labor) and there's some kid drowning nearby you are not in any way obligated to help that kid out and in so doing ruin your good shoes. Nor should you think that helping that drowning kid in any way is a character asset. Equally, not helping that drowning kid is in no way a character defect. This is particularly so if by helping the kid you wreck your shoes. Now, you should understand that Emmerson would most certainly have let the child die. He would have done this to ensure that the emergence of the character that has made us great (Emmersonian Self-Reliance) wasn't strangled in its infancy right next to the drowning child.

You know I think this is a brilliant post. It is, at first glance, a cold perspective but this is the nature of Liberty- the collective cannot impose vox populi or such upon the minority. While not this thread this is the illness that infects the west today- democracy; Democracy in the sense of mob rule, emotional laws, reactive rules, courts of public opinion, The esteemed nature of the democratic process is dead in the US. After considering further I realize that yes, the charity assault on Trump does reveal the nature of the attacking mind from the left. It is less about charity than redistribution. The assertion that "you didn't build that" that Obama noted about industrious people in America. The underlying assault is primarily about Trump possessing billions where he, or she, or they do not.

[stevenl]

No. It is about Trump making claims he can not prove.

[Neurath]

Nope it's for real. You see, one of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a a duty to others. So if you are standing in your new 500 dollar shoes (shoes that you have bought with the fruits of your Free Labor) and there's some kid drowning nearby you are not in any way obligated to help that kid out and in so doing ruin your good shoes. Nor should you think that helping that drowning kid in any way is a character asset. Equally, not helping that drowning kid is in no way a character defect. This is particularly so if by helping the kid you wreck your shoes. Now, you should understand that Emmerson would most certainly have let the child die. He would have done this to ensure that the emergence of the character that has made us great (Emmersonian Self-Reliance) wasn't strangled in its infancy right next to the drowning child.

You know I think this is a brilliant post. It is, at first glance, a cold perspective but this is the nature of Liberty- the collective cannot impose vox populi or such upon the minority. While not this thread this is the illness that infects the west today- democracy; Democracy in the sense of mob rule, emotional laws, reactive rules, courts of public opinion, The esteemed nature of the democratic process is dead in the US. After considering further I realize that yes, the charity assault on Trump does reveal the nature of the attacking mind from the left. It is less about charity than redistribution. The assertion that "you didn't build that" that Obama noted about industrious people in America. The underlying assault is primarily about Trump possessing billions where he, or she, or they do not.

[sammygood]

are cocaine & hookers not a charitable gift ?

[stevenl]

Nope it's for real. You see, one of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a a duty to others. So if you are standing in your new 500 dollar shoes (shoes that you have bought with the fruits of your Free Labor) and there's some kid drowning nearby you are not in any way obligated to help that kid out and in so doing ruin your good shoes. Nor should you think that helping that drowning kid in any way is a character asset. Equally, not helping that drowning kid is in no way a character defect. This is particularly so if by helping the kid you wreck your shoes. Now, you should understand that Emmerson would most certainly have let the child die. He would have done this to ensure that the emergence of the character that has made us great (Emmersonian Self-Reliance) wasn't strangled in its infancy right next to the drowning child.

You know I think this is a brilliant post. It is, at first glance, a cold perspective but this is the nature of Liberty- the collective cannot impose vox populi or such upon the minority. While not this thread this is the illness that infects the west today- democracy; Democracy in the sense of mob rule, emotional laws, reactive rules, courts of public opinion, The esteemed nature of the democratic process is dead in the US. After considering further I realize that yes, the charity assault on Trump does reveal the nature of the attacking mind from the left. It is less about charity than redistribution. The assertion that "you didn't build that" that Obama noted about industrious people in America. The underlying assault is primarily about Trump possessing billions where he, or she, or they do not.

I agree with one point in your post, democracy in the US is dead. In countries like Thailand social media can help democracy, in others it can be the final blow for democracy.

I think democracy is overrated anyway, but that is probably better for a different discussion.

Edited August 5, 2015 by stevenl

[arjunadawn]

Nope it's for real. You see, one of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a a duty to others. So if you are standing in your new 500 dollar shoes (shoes that you have bought with the fruits of your Free Labor) and there's some kid drowning nearby you are not in any way obligated to help that kid out and in so doing ruin your good shoes. Nor should you think that helping that drowning kid in any way is a character asset. Equally, not helping that drowning kid is in no way a character defect. This is particularly so if by helping the kid you wreck your shoes. Now, you should understand that Emmerson would most certainly have let the child die. He would have done this to ensure that the emergence of the character that has made us great (Emmersonian Self-Reliance) wasn't strangled in its infancy right next to the drowning child.

You know I think this is a brilliant post. It is, at first glance, a cold perspective but this is the nature of Liberty- the collective cannot impose vox populi or such upon the minority. While not this thread this is the illness that infects the west today- democracy; Democracy in the sense of mob rule, emotional laws, reactive rules, courts of public opinion, The esteemed nature of the democratic process is dead in the US. After considering further I realize that yes, the charity assault on Trump does reveal the nature of the attacking mind from the left. It is less about charity than redistribution. The assertion that "you didn't build that" that Obama noted about industrious people in America. The underlying assault is primarily about Trump possessing billions where he, or she, or they do not.

I agree with one point in your post, democracy in the US is dead. In countries like Thailand social media can help democracy, in others it can be the final blow for democracy.

I think democracy is overrated anyway, but that is probably better for a different discussion.

I didn't said "democracy in the US is dead." I said "the democratic process is dead in the US." Capital "D" Democracy is anathema to Liberty, and was despised by all wise men/women until the progressive era. Democracy (mob rule) in the US is alive and well and this is why America is dying.

I will not chase the rabbit here but your post is opposite my own. When "social media can help democracy" you are referring to mob rule, emotive mechanisms, not Natural Rights and democratic processes that are unassailable by the majority. Think you branched off from me at the letter "D."

The comic strip that politicians are measured against in the US is mob rule (Democracy)- emotional manipulation, and mass hysteria. The end result of the roller-coaster ride of emotions and contortions forced upon those who would be a leader of the entire circus troupe-America- results in the most despicable character of a person being made an amalgam of the sickest qualities of the largest group of voters. This then is the next leader. Its sick!

Who gives a crap if Trump or any other share one dollar of their own money? Inherent in the preoccupation with anothers' wealth is unwholesome attachment.

[stevenl]

Nope it's for real. You see, one of the liberties about being a Free Man in a Free land and exercising Freedom is that simply being born does not impart a a duty to others. So if you are standing in your new 500 dollar shoes (shoes that you have bought with the fruits of your Free Labor) and there's some kid drowning nearby you are not in any way obligated to help that kid out and in so doing ruin your good shoes. Nor should you think that helping that drowning kid in any way is a character asset. Equally, not helping that drowning kid is in no way a character defect. This is particularly so if by helping the kid you wreck your shoes. Now, you should understand that Emmerson would most certainly have let the child die. He would have done this to ensure that the emergence of the character that has made us great (Emmersonian Self-Reliance) wasn't strangled in its infancy right next to the drowning child.

You know I think this is a brilliant post. It is, at first glance, a cold perspective but this is the nature of Liberty- the collective cannot impose vox populi or such upon the minority. While not this thread this is the illness that infects the west today- democracy; Democracy in the sense of mob rule, emotional laws, reactive rules, courts of public opinion, The esteemed nature of the democratic process is dead in the US. After considering further I realize that yes, the charity assault on Trump does reveal the nature of the attacking mind from the left. It is less about charity than redistribution. The assertion that "you didn't build that" that Obama noted about industrious people in America. The underlying assault is primarily about Trump possessing billions where he, or she, or they do not.

I agree with one point in your post, democracy in the US is dead. In countries like Thailand social media can help democracy, in others it can be the final blow for democracy.

I think democracy is overrated anyway, but that is probably better for a different discussion.

I didn't said "democracy in the US is dead." I said "the democratic process is dead in the US." Capital "D" Democracy is anathema to Liberty, and was despised by all wise men/women until the progressive era. Democracy (mob rule) in the US is alive and well and this is why America is dying.

I will not chase the rabbit here but your post is opposite my own. When "social media can help democracy" you are referring to mob rule, emotive mechanisms, not Natural Rights and democratic processes that are unassailable by the majority. Think you branched off from me at the letter "D."

The comic strip that politicians are measured against in the US is mob rule (Democracy)- emotional manipulation, and mass hysteria. The end result of the roller-coaster ride of emotions and contortions forced upon those who would be a leader of the entire circus troupe-America- results in the most despicable character of a person being made an amalgam of the sickest qualities of the largest group of voters. This then is the next leader. Its sick!

Who gives a crap if Trump or any other share one dollar of their own money? Inherent in the preoccupation with anothers' wealth is unwholesome attachment.

I am referring to democracy the way it is normally used, you have your own definition "mob rule". So no, my post is not opposite to yours.

I don't think anybody gives a crap whether Trump is giving to charity, I know I don't, I think people do give a crap if Trump is claiming to give to charity but is only paying lip service.

[arjunadawn]

Yes. Agreed. If one says they are doing something and are not they should be held accountable. Got it.

BTW. My definition of the dangers of Democracy come from people much smarter than me, and you- the framers of the US DoI and Constitution.

Edited August 5, 2015 by arjunadawn

[stevenl]

Yes. Agreed. If one says they are doing something and are not they should be held accountable. Got it.

BTW. My definition of the dangers of Democracy come from people much smarter than me, and you- the framers of the US DoI and Constitution.

My last post on this, I'm getting bored with you changing the things you're writing every time: now your definition of 'democracy' has changed to 'the dangers of democracy'. Earlier you clearly defined 'democracy' as 'mob rule'. I really doubt 'the framers of the US Dol and Constitution' ? defined democracy as mob rule.

[arjunadawn]

Yes. Agreed. If one says they are doing something and are not they should be held accountable. Got it.

BTW. My definition of the dangers of Democracy come from people much smarter than me, and you- the framers of the US DoI and Constitution.

My last post on this, I'm getting bored with you changing the things you're writing every time: now your definition of 'democracy' has changed to 'the dangers of democracy'. Earlier you clearly defined 'democracy' as 'mob rule'. I really doubt 'the framers of the US Dol and Constitution' ? defined democracy as mob rule.

Its easy to tire when rolling an intellectual rock uphill. Perhaps you are not familiar with your Athenian and other forebears- our framers were. Yes, Democracy is mob rule. Yes, they were keenly sensitive to this. That you cannot follow discourse when the large and small "d's" are in text does not constitute a measure of truth. It shows you do not know the material.

"What Features of the US Constitution Had Distrust of a Democracy?" http://classroom.synonym.com/features-constitution-distrust-democracy-20581.html

"Many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution feared direct democracy." http://classroom.synonym.com/did-framers-fear-direct-democracy-9227.html

"A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule)." http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html

"The Founders' Greatest Fears About Democracy Are Playing Out." http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/07/31/the-founders-greatest-fears-about-democracy-are-playing-out/

"Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy." http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

Mob rule means infringement upon others by the vox de jure, vox populi. Mob Rule=Democracy. Democracy imposes upon the minority. In this case, those who have money being subject to evidence of compassion- a bankruptcy of the collective polity. It is truly no one's business what another does with their money, or charity.

[MZurf]

Yes. Agreed. If one says they are doing something and are not they should be held accountable. Got it.

BTW. My definition of the dangers of Democracy come from people much smarter than me, and you- the framers of the US DoI and Constitution.

My last post on this, I'm getting bored with you changing the things you're writing every time: now your definition of 'democracy' has changed to 'the dangers of democracy'. Earlier you clearly defined 'democracy' as 'mob rule'. I really doubt 'the framers of the US Dol and Constitution' ? defined democracy as mob rule.

Its easy to tire when rolling an intellectual rock uphill. Perhaps you are not familiar with your Athenian and other forebears- our framers were. Yes, Democracy is mob rule. Yes, they were keenly sensitive to this. That you cannot follow discourse when the large and small "d's" are in text does not constitute a measure of truth. It shows you do not know the material. "What Features of the US Constitution Had Distrust of a Democracy?" http://classroom.synonym.com/features-constitution-distrust-democracy-20581.html

"Many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution feared direct democracy." http://classroom.synonym.com/did-framers-fear-direct-democracy-9227.html

"A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule)." http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html "The Founders' Greatest Fears About Democracy Are Playing Out." http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/07/31/the-founders-greatest-fears-about-democracy-are-playing-out/

"Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy." http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

Mob rule means infringement upon others by the vox de jure, vox populi. Mob Rule=Democracy. Democracy imposes upon the minority. In this case, those who have money being subject to evidence of compassion- a bankruptcy of the collective polity. It is truly no one's business what another does with their money, or charity.

Mental masturbation.

[stevenl]

Yes. Agreed. If one says they are doing something and are not they should be held accountable. Got it.

BTW. My definition of the dangers of Democracy come from people much smarter than me, and you- the framers of the US DoI and Constitution.

My last post on this, I'm getting bored with you changing the things you're writing every time: now your definition of 'democracy' has changed to 'the dangers of democracy'. Earlier you clearly defined 'democracy' as 'mob rule'. I really doubt 'the framers of the US Dol and Constitution' ? defined democracy as mob rule.

Its easy to tire when rolling an intellectual rock uphill. Perhaps you are not familiar with your Athenian and other forebears- our framers were. Yes, Democracy is mob rule. Yes, they were keenly sensitive to this. That you cannot follow discourse when the large and small "d's" are in text does not constitute a measure of truth. It shows you do not know the material.

"What Features of the US Constitution Had Distrust of a Democracy?" http://classroom.synonym.com/features-constitution-distrust-democracy-20581.html

"Many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution feared direct democracy." http://classroom.synonym.com/did-framers-fear-direct-democracy-9227.html

"A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule)." http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html

"The Founders' Greatest Fears About Democracy Are Playing Out." http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2013/07/31/the-founders-greatest-fears-about-democracy-are-playing-out/

"Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy." http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Why%20Our%20Founders%20Feared%20a%20Democracy.htm

Mob rule means infringement upon others by the vox de jure, vox populi. Mob Rule=Democracy. Democracy imposes upon the minority. In this case, those who have money being subject to evidence of compassion- a bankruptcy of the collective polity. It is truly no one's business what another does with their money, or charity.

Yes, of course they feared democracy, because they feared giving up power.

Your definitions are still off, and in spite of an admission earlier from your side that the case on hand is not about what Trump does with his money but what he claims to do with his money your back to your usual mantra without any care at all what this is about.

Good luck, I won't be able to read any of your posts anymore.

[Loptr]

If this is the only dirt the Washington political machine can dig up on The Donald, they are in deep, deep dodo...