Because doing so would give credibility to Trump's claims. By releasing this information, he'd be saying "You're right, you have cause to be concerned." By ignoring it, he's treating it as it deserves to be treated.
Obama released his birth certificate twice! He released the normal birth certificate, the one and only one issued by state governments across the land. But that was not good enough for the Birthers. They wanted the "long form" birth certificate, the birth certificate not released by states. So Obama got the State of Hawaii to make an exception for him and released his "long form" birth certificate. And even so, that has not squelched the Birther nonsense. We still have Republican foot soldiers and Republican officials in places like Kansas challenging President Obama's place of birth despite the overwhelming evidence and release of all the doucments the Birthers demaned. Reality is inconsequential to Republican foot soldiers and Republican leaders will always use that to their advantage.
This and all your other points are easily fixed by putting the money in an escrow account. One nice thing about money is it buys the same if given by very bad or very good person. Obama, IMHO should say: Put the funds in bank escrow account that returns to you if I don´t release college, etc. records as specified. You have lost sight of the objective of taking the money - to help charities. It is not to boost or detract, or change the Donald statue or views. Exactly the opposite, I think. I am starting to wonder if there is something bad Obama is hidding - not wanting known that stops him from helping some Charities at Donald´s expense - at least make it 5 million less Trump can help Romney buy TV ads with. SUMMARY: like the preacher said: Why not do some good with Trump´s 5 million, especially if you dislike Trump?
If Trump has 5 million dollars laying around that he's willing to give to a charity, isn't it his fault that he's keeping that money from helping the poor just to indulge in his own cynical political agenda?
He probably would tap a line of credit to get $5E6 in hand, but how is not of concern, nor is his "cynical political agenda." Right now, it is Obama, not Trump, who is "keeping that money from helping the poor." Try to keep your eye on the ball - get 5 million for Obama selected charities, not Trump. - One surely would be Planned Parenthood to recover the lead he had with women.
McCain Answers the Question McCain Answers the Question Well, we found out today what it takes to get a Republican to criticize former Secretary of State Colin Powell for his infamous speech to the United Nations in advance of the Iraqi Bush War: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is still not pleased with former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement for President Barack Obama's second term. Speaking to National Review's Robert Costa on Friday, he said, "Colin Powell, interestingly enough, said that Obama got us out of Iraq. But it was Colin Powell, with his testimony before the U.N. Security Council, that got us into Iraq." McCain blasted Powell on Fox News Radio's "Kilmeade & Friends" Thursday for endorsing Obama for reelection. "Well, I’m just saddened because, you know, I used to be a great admirer of Colin Powell," he said. "We were friends. I think one of the sad aspects of his career is going to the United Nations Security Council and telling them things about Iraq that were absolutely false." "All I can say is that Gen. Powell, you disappoint us and you have harmed your legacy even further by defending what has clearly been the most feckless foreign policy in my lifetime," he continued. (Johnson) Imagine that. No, really, there's no way I could have seen that coming. Especially considering Sen. McCain's record on those issues. ____________________ Notes: Johnson, Luke. "John McCain Slams Colin Powell For A Second Time: He 'Got Us Into Iraq'". The Huffington Post. October 26, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. October 25, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/john-mccain-colin-powell_n_2024574.html
It’s pathetic. This is yet another example of how Republicans flagrantly lie about virtually anything and everything. First it is ludicrous to assert or infer that the then Secretary of State, Collin Powell, was in some way responsible for causing George Jr. to launch the war in Iraq not to mention about 10 years late. Hannity and McCain along with many other Republicans were big supporters of the Iraq war and virtually anything George Jr. did as POTUS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#Secretary_of_State
Are you saying Donald could just give the money to Charities, and Obama is not blocking that? Many of the super rich could, but they usually want something in return for their money (why they are "super rich"). I did say "Right now" referring to the current offer that is on the table. I.e. to speak in tennis terms: Donald has hit the ball into Obama´s court and there is nothing more he can do at this point, until Obama moves. Anyway, despite several different replies and comments on my post, no one has given an answer to the question I asked: Why does not Obama take the 5 million dollars and give it to Charities he likes? Especially one like Planned Parenthood, which will help Obama regain the gender lead he had. Assuming there is nothing embarrassing in Obama´s records, this could really backfire on Trump and help elect Obama. I don´t expect Donald would make me even 0.01% of the offer to do what he wants Obama to do, but in case he is in doubt; Yes for 500 dollars I will release my college transcripts, my pass port application (and just to tempt him with more than he asked for - even my application for permanent resident status in Brazil.*) * It is the more interesting one. It includes my signed agreement not to take a job that a Brazilian can do as well, and proof that I can support myself, AND a "gold star certificate" from my local US police department! - I did not know they even existed, but they do and do have a gold star stuck on them! Back to point: WHY not take the 5 million?
Billy T Well, DUH! Despite several people telling you why you seem unable to understand simple English... 1. Donald Trump has no intention of paying the wager(see reasons 2,3,4,5). 2. Donald Trump is a clown, not a serious actor. Dignifying him with a response is what Donald is after, making himself "Huuuge"!. 3. "To my satisfaction" is Donaldese for "When Hell freezes over". Note his "satisfaction" with the official long form birth certificate. 4. Donald Trump could not lay his hands on 5 million unless he was taking a tour of Rmoney's Cayman bank accounts. 5. Donald just got fired from Trump Properties(for incompetence and dishonesty), he really needs that 5 mil. thing to go away! 6. Donald is a huckster, a self promoting child, an oligarth wanabee, he fits right in with Mittens' crowd of "Mad Men". These are answers to your question, don't repeat the lie "...no one has given an answer to the question I asked". You may not like those answers, but to deny their existence is being very Republican, to put it bluntly. I have highlited the operative phrases for the intellectually challenged. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I told in post 583 that all Obama needed to do is say: "Put the 5 million in bank escrow account." to call his dishonest bluff, if that is what it is as you think. You seem either: (1) to be unable to understand simple English, OR (2) don´t know how escrow accounts function OR (3) did not read post 583. PS - I´m still waiting for an answer, -distractions that don´t apply OR personnel opinions about Donald Trump, that can easily be tested by an request for funds to be put into an escrow account, don´t count as answer to "Why not take the money?". going to bed now.
What hypocracy? The Iraq situation had to be resolved one way or the other. Don't forget, it wasn't as if Iraq was just some random nation that we decided to attack for no apparent reason. The first gulf war was never resolved. We had planes patrolling Iraqi airspace and an embargo on Iraq continuously since the "end" of that war. The onus was on Sadamn to prove he'd gotten rid of his WMD's. He, apparently, decided he was more afraid of appearing weak to the arab world by admitting that he didn't have any WMD's than of the consequences of not following thru with the ceasefire agreement. The entire world thought he had WMD's. That was no lie. Rage? What rage? It's more of a continuing sense of disappointment verging on disgust at an administration that would rather blame a video and throw the first ammendment under the bus than speak the word "terrorism" in anything but the most oblique of ways. Obama's so called jobs plan is just more of the same crap he's been pushing his entire presidency. It doesn't work. There is no magic multiplier that turns $1 of government spending into $1.50 or more of economic output. Every dollar of government spending takes a dollar of spending from the private sector after first running it thru the government bureacracy. The ultimate result is a multiplier of less than one. Government spending is fine for things you really need like roads and bridges, but paying people to dig holes and fill them in (or paying off a bunch of political croneys) doesn't help the economy. Far from an atttempt to stiffle the economic recovery, the Republicans were (mostly) attempting to prevent even more money from being wasted on fruitless government spending at a time when our deficit is already so large that we've seen our credit rating dropped not just once, but twice during Obama's term of office. Again, you turn a disagreement over policy into an attempt to portray your opponents as dirty liars with no concern for the public welfare. You completely ignore the arguments and ideas of your opponents and instead choose to interpret things in a way that portrays them as evil monsters bent on world domination and the enslavement of mankind. Your constant portrayal of Obamacare care as "a Republican plan" because one think tank and a few politicians are on the record as supporting it 20 years ago is left-wing spin at best if not an outright lie. Conservatism is a big tent. It generates a lot of ideas. Not all of which are good. There is a certain logic to the individual mandate that I can understand, but it is clearly unconstitutional (the tortuous supreme court decision that turned a penalty into a tax even though it had earlier ruled that Obamacare was not a tax notwithstanding). As to Romney, Romneycare is the reason I didn't support him back in 2008. However, compared to Obama, Romney is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. I will say this, everyone who ever thought that electing a black president would finally put an end to the race card were dead wrong. It's been played, and played, and played more than ever since Obama became president. The sin is constantly crying wolf to the point that you delegitimize the very thing you claim to be so concerned about. Can you? For instance, clearly you regard your description of Obamacare as the Republican's "own plan" as a bit of clever spin, yet any spin from the right you see as outright lies. Bush lied!, but Obama simply engaged in cautious, diplomatic verbage. So cautious that few noticed the reference to terrorism he snuck in there amid the barage of blaming an obscure youtube video his administration was engaged in. Moreover, should anyone claim that said reference was oblique at best and arguably not refering specifically to the events in Libya, well, then they're a dirty liar!!!!
How do you figure? The fundamentals, including the individual mandate, which has been the chief Republican objection to Obamacare, came out of the Heritage Foundation. And Republicans in congress drafted a healthcare bill with the individual mandate. That is hypocrisy of the first order - no spin required. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein
From your link (#1) If you are specifically refering to Bob Dole and the 18 guys who co-sponsored the Chafee bill back in 1993, I agree. It would be hypocritical for those guys to support a mandate in 1993 and then oppose it in 2010. But the individual mandate certainly wasn't an idea that enjoyed broad support among the Republican party. I never even heard of it prior to it becoming part of Obamacare and perhaps as part of the discussion leading to its passage. It's not like it was part of the contract with America.
So you agree Republicans are being hypocritical and your previous post was incorrect. Republican leadership supported the individual mandage.
And why did the rest of the world believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Because George Jr. and his fellow Republicans told them so, it was a lie. The onus wasn’t on Saddam, it was on George Jr., George Jr. made the accusations. It was up to him to prove them. Saddam didn’t report to George Jr. and his fellow Republicans, to think otherwise is the apex of hubris. And the first Gulf War was resolved and our troops were withdrawn, a peace was made. This makes no sense whatever. It sounds like Republican talk radio. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, your claims about Obama’s jobs numbers are not borne out by the data. Obama in 3 years has created more jobs than his predecessor, a Republican, created in 8 years of office. Obama’s job policies took a country losing nearly a million jobs a month and more with each passing month as it was when President Obama was sworn into office, into an economy that has been steadily adding between 100k -200k jobs each and every month. That is a net increase of a million jobs per month. That is something you and your fellow Republicans like to conveniently and repeatedly forget – putting your hands over your ears and repeatedl yelling la la la, I don’t hear you. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans the facts, the truth is not on your side. You guys out of political necessity are lying. Because few Americans would vote for Republicans if the truth were known. That is why Romney has been a fountain of lies. As for your nonsense about a negative multiplier for government spending, where is your proof? You don’t have any because none exists. It doesn’t even make the least bit of sense. You are obviously repeating the lies commonly found in the Republican media. And no one is advocating a “magical multiplier”. That is yet another straw man. The multiplier (fiscal) is a measure to estimate the incremental impact of an additional dollar of spending on the economy (income). Government or private industry purchases goods or services, and the recipient of that spending generates subsequent additional spending and income - a chain reaction if you will, with subsequent transactions which create more income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier#Examples The only way government or for that matter private industry spending can reduce the fiscal multiplier is if resources are constrained (e.g. government and private industry competing for capital commonly referred to as the crowing out effect) and that certainly is not now the case. We currently have an overabundance, excess capacity (i.e. supply) in the economy, so your notion that somehow government spending has a negative multiplier effect is just nonsense. It has no basis in reality or reason. You are just repeating more Republican nonsense (lies) for the uneducated and uninformed. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15931 So your economic commentary may make good political sense, but it makes no economic sense and has no basis in reality. Republicans who know better have been deliberately stifling the economy for political benefit at the expense of ordinary Americans. That is a fact.
Not Republicans in general, Bob Dole and the 18 co- sponsors of the Chafee bill. That is, assuming they now oppose the general concept of an individual mandate. Of course you are willfully ignoring the larger point, which is that the Chafee plan was never really popular with Republicans in general or with anybody, really. Most of us never even heard of it.
So just because not every Republican was aware of the Chafee bill one cannot indict Republicans for their hypocrisy on this issue? Republican leadership was certainly aware of the Chafee Bill. The facts are the Republican leadership backed the individual mandate in addition to the Republican/conservative think tank. The individual mandate is consistent with the ideals of individual responsibility and free markets which Republicans claim to revere as one of their core principals. That is why the Republican leadership endorsed the individual mandate. Presumably you were familiar with the Republican stated core principals of individual responsibility and free markets? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612 The facts are the elected Republican leadership in the House and Senate both endorsed the Chafee healthcare bill. Those Republican leaders were as recently as 2009 still endorsing the individual mandate. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...dual-mandate-as-recently-as-may-2009/252233/#
Billy T Then get back to us when the money is in the account, because it doesn't exist until that is done. Trump is a Lucy in search of a Charley Brown(Obama)to mess with, he's never acted in any other way. So giving him the very thing he wants(attention from the President)is a fool's game with absolutely no benefit in return, and Obama is not a fool. Your problem seems to be an inability to understand simple logic. Trump does not have 5 mil, he cannot get 5 mil, he never had any plan to be satisfied with anything the President released and the whole purpose of this stunt was to lower the President to the sewer where Trump, Sununu, Coulter and Flush Dimbulb live. Not going to happen. Trump can stick this racist BS back up the same chute it proceeded from. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
