In trivializing the Shoah, Donald Trump Jr. shows he's a chip off the old blockhead

Image result for pictures of donald trump jr.in africa

 

 

"Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday suggested the media has helped Hillary Clinton by letting her 'slide' on 'every lie' and said that if Republicans did the same, the media would be 'warming up the gas chamber' for them."  [cbsnews.com]

 

Alluding to gas chambers

Donald Trump Jr.

In hammering Hillary

Couldn't be loonier.

Like an acorn falls near the tree

This ignorant laddie,

By hijacking the Holocaust,

Has learned from his daddy.

 

Filed under: moral compass

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I commented on that one earlier.

    I did get back to your point on Donald J. Blagojevick using the foundation for his own use. The Washington Post has it even worse. On the picture point, it has Melania bidding against herself, knowing that foundation money would cover it.

    However, the real kicker is that Trump solicited a donation of $150,000 for the police from someone else, the Foundation gave $150,000 to the police group, but the police group paid to rent a room in Trump's resort to honor him. A similar filing a couple of years later indicates that the police group paid $276,000 to rent the room. #doubleyourmoneydoubleyourfun.

    4zen and Chef have not figured how to cash in on that.

    What led me to this was an article "MARK CUBAN: The smartest thing Donald Trump has ever done is not release his tax returns" but the point was that there was no reason to release his tax returns because the Foundation returns shows he is not charitable. Not shown whose money was used in the Bondi transactions.

  • In reply to jack:

    It appears you've escaped sanction. Jack we can only hope you're not reading 'How to make a difference' by Sirhan Sirhan.

    The story did not say the Palm Beach police met to honor Trump, it says during their meeting they honored him. In other words they meet somewhere (obviously spending money on rent) every year, why is it crazy they would choose one of the most beautiful places in Palm Beach owned by a man who raised money for them?

    How does this compare to the Clinton Foundation taking in 140 million in 2013 from dubious sources with 9 million going to charity and the remainder to salaries, world travel and expenses?

  • In reply to 4zen:

    On your first point, you obviously didn't read the distinction I made. Now, if Dr. Oz said that the summary report was that Trump was about to croak from his excessive cholesterol problem and should get off the fried chicken circuit immediately, that would be different.

    Doesn't negate that Trump's whole involvement with this was to make $240K off of someone else's money.

    I see you don't cite any source for your repeated assertions about the Clinton Foundation. The foundation publishes its annual reports and audited Financials and IRS statements. I'm sure neither you nor your Breitbart buds read them, in your case, even though I cited them before. If you have some impartial source (not the alt-right media) that the Program Services are not as reported, feel free to post a link.

    In the meantime, your man seems to be taking 2 of his 4 children's advice not to post his tax return, even though he previously lied that he couldn't because of the audit. Maybe it is because Donald J. Blagojevick is siphoning funds from entities that should be independent.

  • In reply to jack:

    Source. Don't complain about sources if your going post from the alt-left WaPo, owned by Trump hater Jeff Bezos.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    However, you didn't cite it. If the source is the Washington Post, cite it directly.
    A quick search indicates that the source is not Jeff Bezos.but Tucker Carlson.
    Please don't engage in misrepresentation. Like your hero does.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    To the extent the article you cited relies on The Charity Navigator, that site now gives The Clinton Foundation a 4 star rating.

    A search indicates that whatever difficulty the Foundation had with Charity Navigator was cleared up.

    You really think we are fools that don't verify propaganda?

    You can take this post as clearing up any ambiguity in my last post.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    The various Trump Foundations are "not rated" because "Private foundations receive the majority of their money from only one individual, family or corporation. This differs from the public charities that Charity Navigator evaluates."

    However, since the reports are that Trump puts other people's money, and not his own, into the Foundation, he has deceived the primary source for the evaluation. Tripped up again, 4zen? Chef is ashamed of you.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, as predidicted you appear to be reverting back to the mean as a creature of ridicule. You oddly bring the projected ideas of 'hero' worship and 'shame' to the front of the discussion. My guess is that you would really like to talk about your feelings of alienation, social awkwardness and early experience of male domination.

    Far as the rest of your post, it's hard to see much sense when Jeff Bezos was never cited as a source. You asked for a link to my source of data and it was given. I never mentioned the Charity Navigator, but since you find it so relevant it must be mentioned that the Navigator CEO who rang the alarm on the Clintons has since 'departed' the position according to NY Magazine...

    Whether a Charity Navigator rating is significant is an open question. Professor Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting at Ohio State University and an expert in philanthropy, puts it this way:

    "A Charity Navigator rating would be something that supporters and/or critics would fixate on to support their pre-existing views of the organization or its founders, but wouldn't really provide new information."

  • In reply to 4zen:

    1. You have broken your promise not to engage in insults. Your credentials as a psychologist of persons you have not met have not been established.

    2. I'll admit I misconstrued your Jeff Bezos post. However, despite your characterization of Bezos (which would only establish that he is in a long line of business leaders who have no use for your conman), somehow he tolerates columnists such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, and Jennifer Rubin--all conservatives, but I guess you don't think so, because they are anti-Trump. How many liberals write for the blogs you cite?

    3. You missed the whole point of the Charity Navigator citation. Your source relied entirely on Charity Navigator. Your source was out of date. Yet you now want to disclaim the primary source. As most Trump propaganda, that's intellectually dishonest. You are again unwilling to admit that your source of [air quotes]information[air quotes] is not reliable, but at least Daily Caller identified the primary source.

    4. Your now attempt to disclaim Charity Navigator is no different than you blaming me when I took it that the 10 issues, most of which your candidate does not support were then called irrelevant to you. You made your choices, and like your candidate's spox, may not weasel out of them. Understand???????

  • In reply to jack:

    No, you broke your promise as predicted. This 'hero' worship and Chef is 'ashamed' of me non-sense is meant as ridicule, you're being obtuse.

    I'll retract my first paragraph if you can prove to be an adult, the rest stands.

  • In reply to jack:

    No, you broke it. You addressed something about me personally, not the topic of the post, nor something I wrote. I have only written about what you wrote and how it is a logical mess.

    I see you can't discuss the issues, like the real source of the Clinton Foundation commentary, nor the whole Bondi mess.

    You'll retract your first paragraph without condition. Otherwise, you and Chef can go into your common hole, and any truce with me is off. Like your birther buddy (who suddenly retracted his birther claim), you don't have any right to ask me to prove anything, especially negate an insult "f you can prove to be an adult."

  • In reply to jack:

    There's no reason for me to rehash your trolling, garbage in shall receive garbage out.

    You said nothing about the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and the Charity Navigator has been compromised.

    The political noose is tightening Jack and your claws are finding little substance.

  • In reply to jack:

    Speaking of GIGO, isn't that all the Trump campaign is and what its apologists disseminate?

    #projection #hypocrisy.

    It looks like you just gave me permission to go back to 4drumpf, ¼kimzen.

  • I wish they had an icon other than "like", for instance "this guy is a moron." That might be too long though

  • In reply to Bob Schneider:

    I'm not sure to what comment board you are referring, but most with which I am familiar eliminated the thumbs down because people were using them to flame others without articulating a reason.

    If you are referring to Facebook comments, The Quark doesn't use them. Seeing the usual comment board that still uses them (such as Yahoo!), the alt-right would have put you into the hidden category already.

  • In reply to Bob Schneider:

    Careful for what you wish for Bob.

  • In reply to Bob Schneider:

    Bob can I remind you about ad hominem attacks?

  • In reply to Chef Boy RD:

    Such as what you commit.

  • Yep, his daddy taught him well. Deplorable.

  • What is with you All Left members? The smartest woman in the world is going to win. Unless the dead stay home and third party voters vote Green or loony Librarian and the cheated Bernie Heads stay home.

    You guys are doing the hate on a loser leader of deplorables and nobody on the CN roster of All Left is going to vote for.

  • In reply to Chef Boy RD:

    Here's another message for the readers here, since Chef does not read the comments here.

    Chef has posted the "futility " comment at least 4 times. Chef can't figure out that his comment is futile.

  • Meantime, to get back to the topic of Donald J. Blagojevick, AP reports "Trump signed improper charity check supporting Florida AG."

    The story also has all sorts of backtracking from the Donald J. Blagojevick camp (#typical) about how it was all various accountants' fault, even though he personally asked for and signed the check. Does the purported billionaire run The Trump Organization that sloppily?

    I also don't see anything about Bondi giving back the illegal political donation.

  • In related news, Ivanka cut short an interview with that liberal rag Cosmopolitan when it brought up Daddy's prior view on pregnancy (saw on TV, but a web source). Poor dear wasn't prepared to be questioned.

  • In reply to jack:

    And afterwards dissed Cosmo on Twitter. Holy Helen Gurley Brown.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    ¼kimzen is proud.
    He didn't want the calmer, more appealing Ivanka.

Leave a comment