Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[NoahFence]

I meant the portrait was a joke. It's worth about $100. Or maybe negative.



Yes, he does have such a history. He's a ******** artist and a dishonest quack, for the most part. But, as far as I know, he hasn't committed any crimes like one of the other candidates in this election has, and, furthermore, he won't have a phalanx of powerful flacks to cover for him once he's in office. Hillary will be able to get away with virtually any abuse of power. Trump won't.

Hasn't committed any crimes.

Right....

Furthermore, when (lol) he's in office he'll have a phalanx of even bigger morons surrounding him. I'm sure that'l work out just fine.

 

[Ladewig]

Trump paid 20K of other people's money to buy a 6 foot portrait of himself. You know who does that? Psychotic, dangerous madmen..

I am having a hard time accepting that diagnosis from this single action. There are all sorts of vain people who would do that if they had the opportunity. Wanting someone else to pay for a 6-foot portrait of oneself is not a sign of dangerousness or madness.

 

[NoahFence]

I am having a hard time accepting that diagnosis from this single action. There are all sorts of vain people who would do that if they had the opportunity. Wanting someone else to pay for a 6-foot portrait of oneself is not a sign of dangerousness or madness.

Its not a single action.


The "Is Trump a dangerous madman" bridge was crossed a long time ago. Try to keep up.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The 6 foot portrait was painted in 7 minutes by a speed painter. It clearly wasn't worth anywhere near $20,000, so the $20,000 was clearly a contribution for charity. Now, maybe he shouldn't have kept it, but it has de minimis value. It's kind of a joke.



Do I smell panic and desperation in your words? Yes, I think I do.

It doesn't help defend the claim that Trump used Foundation money illegally to buy a $20000 painting, that the painting is considered schlock by the art world. But it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's just note that his foundation is a relatively trivial matter. The big issues involve Trump's hundreds of private businesses and deals around the world.

And the kind of people he does business with.

 

[snoop_doxie]

I am having a hard time accepting that diagnosis from this single action. There are all sorts of vain people who would do that if they had the opportunity. Wanting someone else to pay for a 6-foot portrait of oneself is not a sign of dangerousness or madness.

How would you describe someone who used another's charitable
donation to buy a six foot painting of himself, and kept it.

That painting cost someone $20,000 dollars, but it was not Trump.

Vainglorious.

 

[Ladewig]

Its not a single action.


The "Is Trump a dangerous madman" bridge was crossed a long time ago. Try to keep up.

Yes. I'll try to keep up.

However, I will insist even further that the portrait is not evidence in any possible way of Trump's metal health issues or dangerousness. It is a painting. It might be tacky, self-serving, and an inappropriate use of foundation money, but calling it a sign of a psychosis is rather absurd.

There are more than enough reasons to not elect this man. Saying he is dangerous because of a portrait does not help the cause.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I meant the portrait was a joke. It's worth about $100. Or maybe negative.



Yes, he does have such a history. He's a ******** artist and a dishonest quack, for the most part. But, as far as I know, he hasn't committed any crimes like one of the other candidates in this election has, and, furthermore, he won't have a phalanx of powerful flacks to cover for him once he's in office. Hillary will be able to get away with virtually any abuse of power. Trump won't.

Many of these Trump Foundation shenanigans are actual crimes.

 

[CapelDodger]

They don't care. I've noticed a great many so called "Trump supporters" are really more interested in attacking Hillary.

Indeed. Their hatred of Hillary Clinton is pathological. Their love of Trump is merely exigent.

 

[Ladewig]

How would you describe someone who used another's charitable
donation to buy a six foot painting of himself, and kept it.

That painting cost someone $20,000 dollars, but it was not Trump.

Vainglorious.

Yes. Vainglorious is a very good description. Perhaps even Tone-deaf, clueless, or blindingly self-centered.

How would you describe it? Do you really think it is a symptom of a psychosis?

ETA
I would be willing to concede that a 20-foot portrait would be a sign of mental health issues beyond neurosis.

 

[lomiller]

Trump isn't a conservative, he isn't a liberal or a moderate. What he is is racist narcissistic demagogue and a moron. Trump knows nothing about policy or government and has done very little thinking on the matter. This is why he has no values. Trump doesn't believe in anything but his own superiority to everyone.

That sounds a lot like a conservative

 

[sunmaster14]

It doesn't help defend the claim that Trump used Foundation money illegally to buy a $20000 painting, that the painting is considered schlock by the art world. But it is.

The painting was bought in a charity auction. The proceeds went to charity, not the painter. Do you understand the point? The fact that Trump takes credit for charitable donations that his foundation makes is hardly a crime. The fact that the money in the foundation largely comes from other people and not Trump himself is hardly a crime. The fact that his foundation donated to a charity by buying that painting is hardly a crime. Trump shouldn't have kept the painting, but it has de minimis value, and almost certainly doesn't reach the threshold of a crime in keeping it. It's sort of the equivalent of going to a charity auction and paying $1,000 for two crappy tickets to a Red Sox game and deducting the full $1,000 on your tax return (and not actually going to the game but keeping the tickets as souvenirs).

 

[sunmaster14]

That sounds a lot like a conservative

Or a liberal even.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Yes. Vainglorious is a very good description. Perhaps even Tone-deaf, clueless, or blindingly self-centered.

How would you describe it? Do you really think it is a symptom of a psychosis?

No, not a symptom of psychosis.

I agree with tone-deaf, clueless, and blindingly self-centered.

A "man of the people" who surrounds himself in golden luxury.

I would also add immature, impetuous and childish.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The painting was bought in a charity auction. The proceeds went to charity, not the painter. Do you understand the point? The fact that Trump takes credit for charitable donations that his foundation makes is hardly a crime. The fact that the money in the foundation largely comes from other people and not Trump himself is hardly a crime. The fact that his foundation donated to a charity by buying that painting is hardly a crime. Trump shouldn't have kept the painting, but it has de minimis value, and almost certainly doesn't reach the threshold of a crime in keeping it. It's sort of the equivalent of going to a charity auction and paying $1,000 for two crappy tickets to a Red Sox game and deducting the full $1,000 on your tax return (and not actually going to the game but keeping the tickets as souvenirs).

You're absolutely right. Financial mismanagement, impropriety, tax dodging and violating charitable giving rules, laws, and regs is totally irrelevant. Especially compared to Hillary, who commits federal offenses just by breathing,

 

[snoop_doxie]

The painting was bought in a charity auction. The proceeds went to charity, not the painter. Do you understand the point? The fact that Trump takes credit for charitable donations that his foundation makes is hardly a crime. The fact that the money in the foundation largely comes from other people and not Trump himself is hardly a crime. The fact that his foundation donated to a charity by buying that painting is hardly a crime. Trump shouldn't have kept the painting, but it has de minimis value, and almost certainly doesn't reach the threshold of a crime in keeping it. It's sort of the equivalent of going to a charity auction and paying $1,000 for two crappy tickets to a Red Sox game and deducting the full $1,000 on your tax return (and not actually going to the game but keeping the tickets as souvenirs).

Donald Trump has not donated to his own foundation for eight years.

Why is he taking credit for charitable donations he made with other's money?

His tax returns might tell the story, because donations are deductible
even for the rich? (I am not sure about this, I admit.)

Whether it is a crime or not is not really the point, in my opinion. With
billions of dollars, why not just buy the painting outright, with your own
money? You get the painting and the charity gets your donation.

Clearly, he has no problem using charitable donations to buy things for himself.

He and his running mate have claimed "tens of millions" in donations or
Trump's own "I am a very giving guy" claim.

This event is just one indicator of his ability to serve himself and his organization before anything else.

 

[plague311]

The painting was bought in a charity auction. The proceeds went to charity, not the painter. Do you understand the point? The fact that Trump takes credit for charitable donations that his foundation makes is hardly a crime. The fact that the money in the foundation largely comes from other people and not Trump himself is hardly a crime. The fact that his foundation donated to a charity by buying that painting is hardly a crime. Trump shouldn't have kept the painting, but it has de minimis value, and almost certainly doesn't reach the threshold of a crime in keeping it. It's sort of the equivalent of going to a charity auction and paying $1,000 for two crappy tickets to a Red Sox game and deducting the full $1,000 on your tax return (and not actually going to the game but keeping the tickets as souvenirs).

I do admire that you will put as much effort into minimizing Trump's illegal activities as you do demonizing anything and everything Hillary does.

Trump clearly breaks donation laws...meh, it's "insert_latin_here". It's not a big deal.

Some moron makes the loosest of connections between a donor and Hillary and all of a sudden she's an evil she-bitch that deserves to go to prison. Again though, at least you're beyond even trying to disguise it.

 

[Belz...]

Do I smell panic and desperation in your words? Yes, I think I do.

Are you planning to vote for Trump? What kind of policies to you expect from him?

 

[Belz...]

However, I will insist even further that the portrait is not evidence in any possible way of Trump's metal health issues or dangerousness.

The post has indicated that this is just one of several data points that bring him or her to this conclusion.

 

[Stacko]

The 6 foot portrait was painted in 7 minutes by a speed painter. It clearly wasn't worth anywhere near $20,000, so the $20,000 was clearly a contribution for charity. Now, maybe he shouldn't have kept it, but it has de minimis value. It's kind of a joke

There is no maybe about him keeping it. That is self dealing which is illegal. Since he did not make the charitable contribution with his own money even if he was funding his foundation with his own money (which he isn't), the painting cannot be keep by him or his businesses.