The adventures of President Donald Gump

[Jara 1,153]

On 25 March 2017 at 2:49 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Absolutely 100% Gillard donated and then the Abbott Government did too. I'm flat out today but will provide links on Monday.

Thanks Wrecker - googled it myself - main source seems to be Andrew Blot (and The Oz, which I can't access because I don't want to give Murdoch my money)  - so it seems that both Labor and Liberal governments gave money to this organisation as part of their foreign aid - if anybody can direct me towards a more objective account, I'd be grateful (as I said, I'm genuinely curious about this - have had a couple of people telling me about it recently (but I rarely believe a word that comes from the mouth of The Blot - there's usually a germ of truth in there which he distorts for his own devious ends) 

 

All this "Crooked Hillary" guff from Trump - amazing really - biggest con-job I've seen since the right in America labelled John Kerry a fraud because they reckoned he hadn't done enough to earn his Silver Star - meanwhile they were supporting a playboy draft-dodger who used daddy's money to buy his way out of Vietnam (actually didn't Trump have his own equivalent? - what was the story? He couldn't go to Vietnam because he was fighting his own personal battle against ...VD (!)? )  Always the same story: poor folk die fighting rich folks' wars.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

5 hours ago, Jara said:

Thanks Wrecker - googled it myself - main source seems to be Andrew Blot (and The Oz, which I can't access because I don't want to give Murdoch my money)  - so it seems that both Labor and Liberal governments gave money to this organisation as part of their foreign aid - if anybody can direct me towards a more objective account, I'd be grateful (as I said, I'm genuinely curious about this - have had a couple of people telling me about it recently (but I rarely believe a word that comes from the mouth of The Blot - there's usually a germ of truth in there which he distorts for his own devious ends) 

 

 

Here is a doc from DFAT http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/freedom-of-information/Documents/dfat-foi-1508-F1253.pdf

go to page 10 for a table of $70m worth of donations. To the Clinton Foundation.

I suspect this is tip of the iceberg stuff but really don't have time today or this week to look into it further.

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Wrecker45
Reference page 10 to save anyone reading the entire doc

[Jara 1,153]

Cheers

 

Will check it out (still recovering from weekend celebrations at present)

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

18 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Here is a doc from DFAT http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/freedom-of-information/Documents/dfat-foi-1508-F1253.pdf

go to page 10 for a table of $70m worth of donations. To the Clinton Foundation.

I suspect this is tip of the iceberg stuff but really don't have time today or this week to look into it further.

 

But it looks like it's almost entirely allocated to HIV and AIDS programs?

Did the Clintons then take some of the Clinton Foundation money and spend it on the wedding?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

4 hours ago, Choke said:

But it looks like it's almost entirely allocated to HIV and AIDS programs?

Did the Clintons then take some of the Clinton Foundation money and spend it on the wedding?

The Australian Government funding to the Clinton's doesn't stop at AID's and even if it did, it would still be problematic. Why were we paying a a US foundation for AIDS control in PNG? Makes no sense.

Here's a media release from the then opposition party in Australia, for a carbon tax (non) tender in Kenya, to the Clinton Foundation. Apparently Australia won the tender and paid the Clinton foundation for its (non) work. We weren't just paying for AID's research. We paid the Clinton Foundation for lots more odd things where there were many better companies with actual expertise.

What I understand is: 

A lot of of the Countries paying the Foundation for charity were doubling up on payments for the same services paid for by other Countries also donating to the Foundation. i.e Australia pays for AIDS research and Ireland pays for AIDS research. Same research double the funds a Tax Invoice for same services to each country.

Lots of poorer countries were unable to get a word in with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, of the USA unless they donated to her charity (the numbers don't lie). When they donated they magically got a meeting with the powers within the USA.

It is unethical for a Secretary of State to receive donations from Countries she deals with particularly because she has ultimate say in their trading power. Hillary did and took it for what it was worth.

Bill Clinton was getting paid speaking fees disproportionately high, whilst his wife was Secretary of State. Obama (who people actually like) can do a years salary on speaking fees and wont come close to Bill Clinton (who people feel a range of pity to hatred towards).

In 2001 the Clinton's are widely cited as being bankrupt, this is their quote. They now have reportedly anywhere between US$100 - $360m. That has either come from their charitable foundation not being so charitable, Bill Clinton being the best and most prolific public speaker ever, investments we don't know about in a highly ethical investment channel or Hillary having a higher Government paid wage than any other politician.

 

 

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

8 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

The Australian Government funding to the Clinton's doesn't stop at AID's and even if it did, it would still be problematic. Why were we paying a a US foundation for AIDS control in PNG? Makes no sense.

Here's a media release from the then opposition party in Australia, for a carbon tax (non) tender in Kenya, to the Clinton Foundation. Apparently Australia won the tender and paid the Clinton foundation for its (non) work. We weren't just paying for AID's research. We paid the Clinton Foundation for lots more odd things where there were many better companies with actual expertise.

What I understand is: 

A lot of of the Countries paying the Foundation for charity were doubling up on payments for the same services paid for by other Countries also donating to the Foundation. i.e Australia pays for AIDS research and Ireland pays for AIDS research. Same research double the funds a Tax Invoice for same services to each country.

Lots of poorer countries were unable to get a word in with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, of the USA unless they donated to her charity (the numbers don't lie). When they donated they magically got a meeting with the powers within the USA.

It is unethical for a Secretary of State to receive donations from Countries she deals with particularly because she has ultimate say in their trading power. Hillary did and took it for what it was worth.

Bill Clinton was getting paid speaking fees disproportionately high, whilst his wife was Secretary of State. Obama (who people actually like) can do a years salary on speaking fees and wont come close to Bill Clinton (who people feel a range of pity to hatred towards).

In 2001 the Clinton's are widely cited as being bankrupt, this is their quote. They now have reportedly anywhere between US$100 - $360m. That has either come from their charitable foundation not being so charitable, Bill Clinton being the best and most prolific public speaker ever, investments we don't know about in a highly ethical investment channel or Hillary having a higher Government paid wage than any other politician.

 

 

 

Well that's... disturbing.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

24 minutes ago, Choke said:

Well that's... disturbing.

Maybe not. She had 30,000 emails on a private server that could have proven it was all above board. She just chose to delete and bleach them. Ohh and keep them on a private server in the first place, so she had that option to delete and bleach...

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Maybe not. She had 30,000 emails on a private server that could have proven it was all above board. She just chose to delete and bleach them. Ohh and keep them on a private server in the first place, so she had that option to delete and bleach...

sigh, the server again.

You know the server isn't an issue right? Bannon, Spicer, Conway and Kushner all use one. The issue is if it's used for government purposes and emails relevant to those purposes aren't then forwarded to the government.

No one gave a crap when the Bush administration was sued for deleting 22 million emails from their private server.

Trump's just changed the optics of it, he's made out like having a private server is unorthodox - it isn't.

Don't get sucked in mate. Clinton may have had some dodgy dealings, but the mere presence of a private email server and subsequent deletion of emails isn't a smoking gun.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

27 minutes ago, Choke said:

sigh, the server again.

You know the server isn't an issue right? Bannon, Spicer, Conway and Kushner all use one. The issue is if it's used for government purposes and emails relevant to those purposes aren't then forwarded to the government.

No one gave a crap when the Bush administration was sued for deleting 22 million emails from their private server.

Trump's just changed the optics of it, he's made out like having a private server is unorthodox - it isn't.

Don't get sucked in mate. Clinton may have had some dodgy dealings, but the mere presence of a private email server and subsequent deletion of emails isn't a smoking gun.

I don't know about the others you are talking about. Perhaps I am naive.

What Hillary did with her private server was unethical to the extreme. If you give me examples of the above doing the same I will likely agree with you, that they did the wrong thing.

I have worked for a number of companies in Australia in the Financial Services Sector where compliance is a necessary evil. If I was forwarding anything from a secure email account to my personal gmail account, or asking clients to bypass the server of the compliant organisation I was working for and send emails directly to my personal gmail account I would be terminated on the spot. And likely fined and investigated by ASIC.

By all means send examples of the above alleged breaches but don't pretend it was ok for Hillary "because everyone else was doing it". I've given examples of the Clinton's foundation's incredible wealth creation. The private server she had was a means for doing that without surveillance and is just another example of how she held herself above the law she was supposed to be in office creating and upholding.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 3/27/2017 at 9:28 AM, Choke said:

Couldn't even repeal the ACA - because he couldn't get his own party to agree on it. Withdrew the bill just before it was set to be introduced to congress so he wouldn't have to suffer the defeat.

For a guy who platformed based on his ability to negotiate and 'win', he hasn't been doing much of either.

The Republicans will probably now just de-fund the ACA through budget and funding bills and then accuse the Act itself of being untenable. Probably the worst of all outcomes.

All the while he charges the American taxpayer to stay at his own resort every weekend, directly profiting from his political position. He wanted to 'drain the swamp', yet this act on its own is as patently corrupt as anything done by those he campaigned to supplant.

If I was an American I'd be very very angry. If I was a Trump voter, I'd be mega-[censored]:

- Said he'd replace the ACA, failed (unable to negotiate with his own party).
- Said he'd ban Muslim migration, failed (stayed by 2 different courts).
- Said he'd make Mexico pay for the wall, untrue (his own proposed budget shows Americans paying for it).
- Said he'd 'drain the swamp', but his cabinet picks are just as conflicted, plus Mar-a-lago issue above
- Said he'd take down ISIS in 30 days (lol)

And all the while he tweets like a thin-skinned baby when he feels like he's been insulted (inauguration numbers anyone?)

I don't want to be stuck in the Trump camp because I'll happily jump off and claim I said he'd be a train wreck but

- Plenty of time to replace the ACA. He will and it can only be better

- Trump never said he would ban all Muslim immigration

- Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall and justified it with proposed tariffs and taxes on Mexico. Not some kind of up front payment.

- Drain the swamp was a slogan rather than a measurable objective. Where I think he is draining the swamp you will be upset.

- Unfortunately Islamic terrorism is a worldwide reality. He bit off more than he could chew and that was a stupid promise.

 

 

[hardtack 10,537]

Time for an interlude...

[Wrecker45 3,378]

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Time for an interlude...

It's a great time for an interlude for anyone who wants to forget about the above facts and start concentrating on a new hate Trump chapter.

[hardtack 10,537]

6 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

It's a great time for an interlude for anyone who wants to forget about the above facts and start concentrating on a new hate Trump chapter.

Not really... I just saw it posted somewhere and thought I'd share... its called humour. What above facts were you referring to by the way? Did you mean your bullet list above..that is, for the most part, your surmising?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

Not really... I just saw it posted somewhere and thought I'd share... its called humour. What above facts were you referring to by the way? Did you mean your bullet list above..that is, for the most part, your surmising?

You can start with my link to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and work yourself down.

 

[hardtack 10,537]

12 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

You can start with my link to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and work yourself down.

 

I saw all of that, but I don't see what any of that has to do with a humorous interlude/jibe at the POTUS. I think you're being a little too touchy on the subject.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

I saw all of that, but I don't see what any of that has to do with a humorous interlude/jibe at the POTUS. I think you're being a little too touchy on the subject.

Just pointing out the distract and deflect. 

[hardtack 10,537]

Just now, Wrecker45 said:

Just pointing out the distract and deflect. 

Well I can promise you that that was certainly NOT the intention. As I said, you're being a little too touchy.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Well I can promise you that that was certainly NOT the intention. As I said, you're being a little too touchy.

No worries. Maybe find a funny interlude about the Clinton Foundation or the previous Lame Duck president? I'm all for humour. Can you find one or is that a bit too touchy for you?

[hardtack 10,537]

25 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

No worries. Maybe find a funny interlude about the Clinton Foundation or the previous Lame Duck president? I'm all for humour. Can you find one or is that a bit too touchy for you?

What's the point? They're history now... and besides, I'm not so emotionally invested that anything related to any POTUS would be touchy for me.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

5 minutes ago, hardtack said:

What's the point? They're history now... and besides, I'm not so emotionally invested that anything related to any POTUS would be touchy for me.

The point is you put a humourless joke up to deflect from the facts presented in the posts above it. The Clinton's have been completely called out for their corruption. 

I challenged you to put a joke up about the Clinton's or Obama and you say there is no point because you are not emotionally invested. Well you obviously are because you wont put up the joke as challenged. And you have nothing to lose because nothing could be less humorous than the last one you put up. 

[hardtack 10,537]

7 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

The point is you put a humourless joke up to deflect from the facts presented in the posts above it. The Clinton's have been completely called out for their corruption. 

I challenged you to put a joke up about the Clinton's or Obama and you say there is no point because you are not emotionally invested. Well you obviously are because you wont put up the joke as challenged. And you have nothing to lose because nothing could be less humorous than the last one you put up. 

I only see one person getting emotional here...it's just a forum, get over it.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I don't want to be stuck in the Trump camp because I'll happily jump off and claim I said he'd be a train wreck but

- Plenty of time to replace the ACA. He will and it can only be better

- Trump never said he would ban all Muslim immigration

- Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall and justified it with proposed tariffs and taxes on Mexico. Not some kind of up front payment.

- Drain the swamp was a slogan rather than a measurable objective. Where I think he is draining the swamp you will be upset.

- Unfortunately Islamic terrorism is a worldwide reality. He bit off more than he could chew and that was a stupid promise.

 

 

- GOP had 7 years to construct a viable alternative. They have about 2 years until they get the inevitable electoral blowback in the congressional elections where they are unlikely to retain the balance of power. This is what happened to Obama. Obama passed the ACA when he was 1 vote short of a super-majority in his first year. 2 years into his presidency the republicans took back congress and he would have been unable to pass it. This is what will happen with the repeal. If the GOP doesn't repeal and replace within the first 2 years, the voters will swing and the Democrats will take congress. There is sufficient indication that this will happen looking at Trump's abysmal approval ratings.

- He sure did - it's still on his own website! The fact that you don't know this indicates to me that you're looking at him through very rose coloured glasses.

- He proposes tariffs and taxes on goods sold in America, purchased by Americans. This means Americans pay the additional tariffs and taxes, not Mexico. Mexico also said that they simply won't pay for it if Trump tries to leverage their trade deficit - so if Trump builds it with American money as you say, there will be no reimbursement.

- Meh, fine, agree to disagree. I see him and his appointees as just as corrupt (or more so) as those he has attempted to replace. I have posted at least twice on his Mar-a-lago rort but no Trump supporter has defended or even engaged the point. The man literally uses taxpayer dollars to pay himself to play golf. It's astonishing.

- It was indeed a stupid campaign promise - but he said it, it is measurable (unlike the swamp above) and he has failed. He won votes based on this statement and has not delivered. This will contribute the the electoral blowback I wrote of above, effectively putting a clock on his ability to pass significant pieces of legislation like Trumpcare. How is an electorate suppose to distinguish between a 'stupid' promise and one he's supposed to fulfil? We've seen stories of people who voted for him who thought the wall was a stupid idea and would never happen, but here he is pushing on with it. We have to take all promises as things he intends on delivering. He has failed to defeat ISIS in 30 days. He said he was smarter than all the generals, this is clearly not the case.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

58 minutes ago, Choke said:

- GOP had 7 years to construct a viable alternative. They have about 2 years until they get the inevitable electoral blowback in the congressional elections where they are unlikely to retain the balance of power. This is what happened to Obama. Obama passed the ACA when he was 1 vote short of a super-majority in his first year. 2 years into his presidency the republicans took back congress and he would have been unable to pass it. This is what will happen with the repeal. If the GOP doesn't repeal and replace within the first 2 years, the voters will swing and the Democrats will take congress. There is sufficient indication that this will happen looking at Trump's abysmal approval ratings.

- He sure did - it's still on his own website! The fact that you don't know this indicates to me that you're looking at him through very rose coloured glasses.

- He proposes tariffs and taxes on goods sold in America, purchased by Americans. This means Americans pay the additional tariffs and taxes, not Mexico. Mexico also said that they simply won't pay for it if Trump tries to leverage their trade deficit - so if Trump builds it with American money as you say, there will be no reimbursement.

- Meh, fine, agree to disagree. I see him and his appointees as just as corrupt (or more so) as those he has attempted to replace. I have posted at least twice on his Mar-a-lago rort but no Trump supporter has defended or even engaged the point. The man literally uses taxpayer dollars to pay himself to play golf. It's astonishing.

- It was indeed a stupid campaign promise - but he said it, it is measurable (unlike the swamp above) and he has failed. He won votes based on this statement and has not delivered. This will contribute the the electoral blowback I wrote of above, effectively putting a clock on his ability to pass significant pieces of legislation like Trumpcare. How is an electorate suppose to distinguish between a 'stupid' promise and one he's supposed to fulfil? We've seen stories of people who voted for him who thought the wall was a stupid idea and would never happen, but here he is pushing on with it. We have to take all promises as things he intends on delivering. He has failed to defeat ISIS in 30 days. He said he was smarter than all the generals, this is clearly not the case.

I'm stunned he said ban all muslim immigration.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

5 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm stunned he said ban all muslim immigration.

Amazing isn't it?

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

lol, now the Trump Administration tried to block Sally Yates (remember she was the one who caught out Flynn's lie about communicating with Russians) from testifying at the Russia/Trump Campaign link investigative committee.

I wonder why they don't want her testifying...

"Yates and Brennan had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee would probably contradict some statements that White House officials had made, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

Source