October 20, 2017

"It’s highly inappropriate for the president to write a check to the father of a slain service member."

Writes Alison Buckholtz at Slate.
There’s no way to know what goes on within a family, but if the slain service member designated his mother to receive a payout for what is basically the calculated value of his life, and decided his father should not receive any benefit from his death, there was a reason why....

More alarming, though—and separate from the role of the beneficiary—is that President Trump’s personal payment to this Army dad may ultimately threaten the unity of American military families.... The feeling that we’re all in it together... is imperiled by Trump’s offer of a payout to one individual...

The existing system of compensation works. The status quo satisfies. If it doesn’t, then there’s a real conversation to be had....

86 comments:

rhhardin said...

You can get Trump next year for failing to pay the gift tax.

Krumhorn said...

TrumpHate is epidemic like a face-eating microbe in the lunchroom.

- Krumhorn

rehajm said...

The status quo satisfies. If it doesn’t, then there’s a real conversation to be had...

con-ver-sa-tion noun: a leftie lecture.

Unknown said...

It was absolutely inappropriate. Then to make matters worse he doesnt send the check until this story went public. Can this President ever do anything that isn’t abnormal?

tim maguire said...

Trump may spend his money in any legal way that pleases him.

Bob Ellison said...

In clearer words: The government will take care of this. The POTUS cannot do anything on his own. He is owned by the government, as are you citizens.

Rob said...

Trump should take a leaf out of Obama's book concerning payments to insurance companies that were never appropriated by Congress. Have the Government write the check, lack of legal authority be damned. Because that's the way you show you care.

MikeR said...

Awesome. Absolutely no matter what he does, even things that normal people think are sweet. Just read the comments there. People have no brains left where Trump is concerned.

MikeR said...

Are there no depths to which he will not sink?

Ann Althouse said...

Isn't there something wrong with giving that much money to the one person who happens to blurt out "I don't have 2 nickels to rub together"?

Now, when Trump calls somebody, they'll have to be distracted by the thought, maybe if I say I'm poor, he'll send me a check.

Saint Croix said...

Isn't there something wrong with giving that much money to the one person who happens to blurt out "I don't have 2 nickels to rub together"?

I think Christ covers this one. You might check with your local Bible study.




rcocean said...

So in other words, if Trump pays out and does a good deed that's bad.

And if he doesn't pay out, he's a liar and a fraud.

Got it.

Obviously, Trump should never talked about $25,000 - but the man has never been President before.

Saint Croix said...

Obviously, Trump should never talked about $25,000

He's a billionaire. It's good for him to give his money away. He should do more of that. People who want to attack him for his charity should show him up by doing even better charity.

Big Mike said...

Someone who writes for Slate is satisfied with the status quo? When did that ground-shaking event happen?

Jeff Roth said...

Charity must be the exclusive realm of Government, in its role as Government.

Only Anarchy can result from individuals, acting as self-empowered entities, trying to upsurp the rightful role of Government as dispenser of largesse.

Chuck said...

I've been reading about this one, but I still haven't gotten the basic chronology.

When did Trump and this Gold Star father have their conversation?

Then, what happened next?

Then, when did Trump write the check?

I got the clear impression that Trump had not written the check until the Johnson controversy burst into the press, and the father then went public, and then the White House rushed a check out from Trump.

I'm sort of ready to leave the precise ethics of Trump's payment to others who are professionals in military service ethics. But how does one escape the conclusion that Trump blew off the comment or forgot about it until it hit the press? What I'd be interested in, is whether the matter was referred to White House counsel to see if it was even appropriate in the interim. There had to be some doubt. If there was some doubt, and then a resolution in favor of going ahead with the gift, there would be a clear record of White House communications. And it might be just fine for Trump.

And if no such record exists, it would seem to be devastating for Trump. That he just forgot about it until reminded by the press.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Ann Althouse said...
Isn't there something wrong with giving that much money to the one person who happens to blurt out "I don't have 2 nickels to rub together"?

No. It's Trump's money, if he wants to walk down the street and give a hundred dollar bill to everyone he meets that's his prerogative.

Now, when Trump calls somebody, they'll have to be distracted by the thought, maybe if I say I'm poor, he'll send me a check.

Well, yeah, since Slate and WaPo have shot their fat mouths off about it. I don't know if this was widely known or not. I certainly had never heard of it.

rehajm said...

It’s part of his giving pledge.

Saint Croix said...

"It’s highly inappropriate for the president to write a check to the father of a slain service member."

I agree it's not presidential to give your own money away.

Typically presidents want to spend taxpayer money freely and take credit for that.

So it's kind of weird to have a president spend his own money.

Like self-financing his own campaign.

Weird and completely admirable.

n.n said...

Why practice charity when there is redistributive change.

Let's abort neo-National Socialism before it becomes viable... again, and again, and again.

Kevin said...

Since Donald Trump entered the White House, Slate has stepped up our politics coverage—bringing you news and opinion from writers like Jamelle Bouie and Dahlia Lithwick. We’re covering the administration’s immigration crackdown, the rollback of environmental protections, the efforts of the resistance, and more.

Sound like you've already decided what the "news" is...

You stay classy, Slate!

Jupiter said...

What a DFC.

tcrosse said...

In Hillary's America, you pay President. In Trump's America, President pays you.

Jupiter said...

"There’s no way to know what goes on within a family, but if the slain service member designated his mother to receive a payout for what is basically the calculated value of his life, and decided his father should not receive any benefit from his death, there was a reason why."

Yes, and if your husband puts Trump's name there instead of yours, we'll all understand that as well. Although I suspect the Donald would just forward it to you anyway.

Kevin said...

Clearly Trump doesn't understand this governing thing.

He was supposed to pass a bunch of new regulations, which would then create new laws broken within corporations, which Session's DOJ would threaten with huge fines, but then take a lesser but huge amount to be donated to political groups supportive of the President's policies, and call this "investing in our communities", such that his rich friends got richer siphoning these funds into their own companies, and then the guy could get a job there doing nothing, until it was time to cast his vote for Trump in 2020.

Given their admittedly less scrupulous coverage of the Obama Administration, this would be something that even Slate would have to agree is something completely in line with the Presidency as we know it.

Sebastian said...

Trump $25K personal gift to survivors: bad.

Soros $18B tax-avoiding gift to leftist causes: good.

RV Martinez said...

Ms. Althouse, there is no need to worry about Ms. Kelly reacting bottom: "Things cannot ever be so bad that they could not get worst.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

Kevin said...
"Since Donald Trump entered the White House, Slate has stepped up our politics coverage—bringing you news and opinion from writers like Jamelle Bouie and Dahlia Lithwick. We’re covering the administration’s immigration crackdown, the rollback of environmental protections, the efforts of the resistance, and more."

Sound like you've already decided what the "news" is...

You stay classy, Slate!


Well, I won't carry any brief for Slate. But what does "Slate" have to do with the basic story? This isn't any sort of anonymously-sourced expose'. I suppose it is a commentary piece, with a Slate writer's byline, that Althouse linked to; but what about the basic story? Whether Trump only made the payment because of press exposure? And whether such a payment is ethical?

Does "Slate" matter in this instance?


Stan Smith said...

Do you?

Rabel said...

The story went public because the weasels at the Washington Post WERE CALLING THE FAMILIES of soldiers killed in action to try to find something they could use against Trump.

The father told them the story about the offer of 25k. Otherwise it would have been a private matter between Trump and the father.

n.n said...

So, to recap. Charity practiced outside of a non-profit or government office is inappropriate. A choice to risk your life is bad. A Choice to abort your child's life is sacred. Expressions of empathy are an impeachable offense.

Freeman Hunt said...

"Rich Buffoon Gives Insensitive Gift to Undeserving Poor"

Chuck said...

Rabel said...
The story went public because the weasels at the Washington Post WERE CALLING THE FAMILIES of soldiers killed in action to try to find something they could use against Trump.

The father told them the story about the offer of 25k. Otherwise it would have been a private matter between Trump and the father.

And if it had never gone public, would Trump have welshed on his promise to the father?

Asking for a friend.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You can get Trump next year for failing to pay the gift tax.

Not likely since you can
1. Give 14K to anyone you like every year without incurring the need to file a Gift Tax Return. The 14K is exempt from taxes and is exempt from being reported as income to the recipient

2. You can give that amount to as MANY people that you like

3. Anything over the 14K would be listed on the Gift Tax Return. 20K gift causes a 6K reportable gift. That amount goes towards your total life time gift allowance of 5.49million. 5,490,000- $6000.

4. Currently, a taxpayer does not pay gift tax until they have given away over $5.49 million in their lifetime (2017).

Now, Trump MAY have given that much money away. I doubt it though. Gifts are not the same as a Charitable gift which is an entirely different animal of which he can give additional millions for tax planning purposes and tax avoidance :-D

None of MY clients were ever even close to being subject to gift taxes because they didn't give away MILLIONS of dollars.

Don't worry about Trump





Dust Bunny Queen said...

Explanation of the gift tax

Trump just giving someone money shows his character in that there is nothing tax advantaged to him in these personal gifts. They are a pure charitable action with no benefit to Trump. And actually, if he does it enough a detriment in that it will eat away at his allowable life time gifting limit (not annual allowance)

As to whether he, as President, should be picking and choosing which veteran or veteran's family to gift money to, is another issue as well. It does seem to violate the need to be extremely fair in his position as President and not show favoritism.

PS. I am so glad I don't do this financial planning work anymore :-)

n.n said...

a private matter between Trump and the father

Another invasion of privacy. The progressives were apoplectic when they believed that illegal aliens would be exposed. The liberals cry trans-Nazi (i.e. neo-National
Socialist) when ever anyone has the audacity to remark on the Office of the Unknown Baby. The female chauvinists advise women to grab their feminine virtues and use their Stork-given pussy... hats to influence men in the board... bedroom.

Kevin said...

I suppose it is a commentary piece, with a Slate writer's byline, that Althouse linked to; but what about the basic story? Whether Trump only made the payment because of press exposure? And whether such a payment is ethical?

Does "Slate" matter in this instance?


As an example, let's just start with the first claim. What evidence did Slate present that Trump "only made the payment because of media exposure"? (a) that the dad said he didn't get the check, and (b) that the White House said the check had been sent.

Do those two things demonstrate (a) Trump didn't plan on sending the check, and (b) Trump changed his mind and sent the check when he received media exposure for not sending it?

- Could the check have been sent but to an old address?
- Could the check have been marked undeliverable and was in the process of being returned to Trump?
- Could the check have taken time to send out, being Trump's personal accountant would have had to interface with the DOD to get the father's information?
- Could a staffer who was supposed to get the check sent been away on personal business or vacation and thus caused a delay?

I mean, I can go on and on here, but we've all been in situations where checks are sent but returned or were delayed being sent for a variety of reasons.

I even think the editors at Slate have found themselves in such situations - many times.

So how do you jump from that to the certainty of "didn't plan on sending but got caught by the media and forced to send"? How does a reporter write that, and an editor approve that, and a publisher published that, when they really have no information as to what caused the delay or whether it had anything to do with Trump himself?

Well, if you're Slate, and you've got an advocacy position to take, it's not hard to decide for yourself the likely cause and just print it to make it so with your readers.

Matthew Sablan said...

I wonder where the Slate writer stands in how inappropriate it is for Russia to give Clinton money for influence.

Too bad another Trump is a stupid asshole story got in the way of journalism. Funny how that keeps happening.

Darrell said...

Too bad we can't print Wanted: Dead or Alive posters anymore.

Freder Frederson said...

Like self-financing his own campaign.

Will you please stop repeating this lie? Trump did not self-finance his campaign. He accepted both large and small donations and hawked a whole bunch of MAGA crap to help finance his campaign.

tim in vermont said...

I have no idea who is right and wrong or the ethics of this whole thing, but Slate is just another version of the monomaniacal troll from Michigan who shall not be named. Start someplace better.

Jim at said...

"It’s highly inappropriate for the president to write a check to the father of a slain service member."

Well, it's certainly a good thing that didn't actually happen then, isn't it?

WTF is wrong with you people?
Are you mental?

You beat the shit out of him for not writing a check. Now you're beating the shit out of him for not doing something he didn't do.

To hell with you people.

tim in vermont said...

He accepted both large and small donations and hawked a whole bunch of MAGA crap to help finance his campaign

Better hawking MAGA crap than hawking the influence bestowed by the people of the United States of America as a public trust to the tune of a billion dollars or so.

Gahrie said...

Even when Trump does a good thing..he's evil.

If he fucking cured cancer, the headline would be "Trump throws doctors and scientists out of work...women and children hardest hit".

Big Mike said...

@Gahrie, and if Trump brought about world peace the press would be all over him for the unemployed soldiers, sailors, and fighter pilots.

Mary Beth said...

If it doesn’t, then there’s a real conversation to be had....

Dialogue is violence!

Gahrie said...

Isn't there something wrong with giving that much money to the one person who happens to blurt out "I don't have 2 nickels to rub together"?

If Trump had not written the check, the post today would be "Wasn't Trump evil for ignoring that poor man?"

The Vault Dweller said...

This broad is nuts. The purpose of any type of beneficiary system is to make sure the ones you care about are taken care of in case of your death, not to punish people in your family who you may have had a falling out. What kind of family did she grow up in? What kind of family does she live in now?

Gahrie said...

If it doesn’t, then there’s a real conversation to be had....

Dialogue is violence!


When a Lefty uses the word "conversation" they don't actually mean a dialogue.

Rabel said...

"...if the slain service member designated his mother to receive a payout for what is basically the calculated value of his life, and decided his father should not receive any benefit from his death, there was a reason why."

What an asinine thing for the writer at Slate to put into print about a father who recently lost his son.

When I was young and single and signing up for benefits at work I clearly remember listing my Mother as beneficiary. I also remember changing that when I got married. That wasn't a slight to my Father, but was BECAUSE SHE WAS MY MOTHER. I strongly suspect that it is extremely common.

Gahrie said...

Well, I won't carry any brief for Slate.

Of course not! No self respecting life long Republican and member of the GOP Establishment would!

But what does "Slate" have to do with the basic story? This isn't any sort of anonymously-sourced expose'.

That sounds kind of briefy...but I'm sure that's purely accidental and is definitely, 100%, pinky swear not a defense of Slate in any way. Or brief.

I suppose it is a commentary piece, with a Slate writer's byline, that Althouse linked to;

Hey maybe that's it! Maybe the fact that the post links to an article in Slate makes Slate germane? Naw....

but what about the basic story? Whether Trump only made the payment because of press exposure?

Sane people make positive assumptions without evidence to the contrary.

And whether such a payment is ethical?

Hmm..is giving your own money away to a person in need ethical? I've gotta admit that's a tough one Chuckles...I'll need some time on that....

Does "Slate" matter in this instance?

Not if all you're interested in is attacking Trump. Again.

YoungHegelian said...

@Jim,

You beat the shit out of him for not writing a check. Now you're beating the shit out of him for not doing something he didn't do.

Logic Chez Slate:

"The food here is terrible!"

"And the portions are so small!"

Clark said...

The President of The United States is a private citizen. It's kind of a big deal. It's kind of the whole damned idea.

One might consider what he does unseemly. But it doesn't preclude him from being President. What he does with his money is his decision as long as it is not against the law. We are a nation ruled by our peers, not our betters. That's the whole goddamned fucking point.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gospace said...

Rabel said...
"...if the slain service member designated his mother to receive a payout for what is basically the calculated value of his life, and decided his father should not receive any benefit from his death, there was a reason why."

What an asinine thing for the writer at Slate to put into print about a father who recently lost his son.

When I was young and single and signing up for benefits at work I clearly remember listing my Mother as beneficiary. I also remember changing that when I got married. That wasn't a slight to my Father, but was BECAUSE SHE WAS MY MOTHER. I strongly suspect that it is extremely common.


I can pretty much say the exact same thing about signing for SGLI.

Michael K said...

"Can this President ever do anything that isn’t abnormal?"

Can you say anything intelligent ?

Just asking.

Michael K said...

And if no such record exists, it would seem to be devastating for Trump. That he just forgot about it until reminded by the press.

He hasn't got anything on his mind, lately.

Jesus, chuck !

Come up for air !

Michael K said...

" He accepted both large and small donations and hawked a whole bunch of MAGA crap to help finance his campaign."

Yes, unlike Hillary who took a billion dollars from donors who expected something in return.

Like Russia.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Could a wapo have alternative stories to put out if their investigation of promise of gift had come out different

Saint Croix said...

Will you please stop repeating this lie? Trump did not self-finance his campaign.

Trump spent $66 million of his own money on his campaign. I don't dispute he raised money, too. Mostly from working class poor people. It was a campaign that relied on small dollar donations. And when that wasn't enough to pay the bills, he brought out his own checkbook.

Also Trump made the business calculation that the White House could be won at half the price the Clintons were spending.

Trump shrunk campaign expenditures and did a lot of damage to the political consultant industry. Good! Also he damaged the media industry and their credibility. Good! For liberals who have been crying about campaign financing and how corrupt it is, they should be saying a lot of nice things about Trump's campaign.

OldGuy said...

Rebel said - When I was young and single and signing up for benefits at work I clearly remember listing my Mother as beneficiary. I also remember changing that when I got married. That wasn't a slight to my Father, but was BECAUSE SHE WAS MY MOTHER. I strongly suspect that it is extremely common.

Yeah, I did the same thing. For EXACTLY the same reason.

Marcus said...

Maybe he _just_ forgot.

And he can spend his money any way he wants; I don't think it is necessary to add the modifier "legally". What is wrong with people who want to criticize someone for giving out of his own pocket? Ethical? From people who support late-term abortion? From people who look the other way in regard to Hillary's crimes? From people who have been proven to give less to charity than conservatives AND seem to always do so for tax reasons.

Keep on contributing to the Trump Two Term Fund.

Michael K said...

"Keep on contributing to the Trump Two Term Fund."

A lot of that around here and at Patterico who has chuck-like hatred.

PackerBronco said...

He should have said that he'll sponsor a bill to give the guy money, because nothing is better than a government official spending someone else's money to show how generous he is.

MayBee said...

Here's a story about President Obama writing checks to struggling Americans:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/obama-personal-checks_n_1019501.html

narciso said...

The last time, the press care about Dillon baldridge was nearly four minthes ago, then he became a convenient political football.

chickelit said...

Before we go any further, shouldn't we get at what really disturbs the perturbed here and at WaPo? This so-called dad obviously did something terrible to be so disinherited by wife and son. Why, perhaps the dispute is over something Trump himself has done to a former wife or child. Since day one of Trump's ascent to the national stage, I've noticed a poorly concealed, utterly self-righteous smugness - particularly from women regarding Trump. This is related to Trumps's gender gap. It's also related to Hillary's gender gap - a topic which women - even some closest to me- refuse to discuss in a rational way.

Comanche Voter said...

KMAIYKWIMAITYD

themightypuck said...

Agree with pretty much the stack here. Do people really think this is the shit that will bring Trump down. They've been doing it since Trump announced candidacy. I think Taleb wrote a bit about this shit not working back in fall 2015. He was right. I don't get it. It is obvious. It clearly doesn't work. What's the play?

Anonymous said...

"Freder Frederson said...

"Trump did not self-finance his campaign. He . . . hawked a whole bunch of MAGA crap to help finance his campaign."

Hawking MAGA crap *is* self-financing. But I'm not surprised that you don't understand how capitalism works.

Michael K said...

"Do people really think this is the shit that will bring Trump down. "

I don't think they think about it. It's reflex, sort of like a knee jerk.

I do think it could bring on a revolution if it goes far enough but I hope it doesn't.

bgates said...

Here's a story about President Obama writing checks to struggling Americans:

That story does include a quote from Obama saying he writes those checks.

It does not include any quotes from people who had received those checks.

It does include a heartfelt request from the HuffPo reporter for heartwarming stories about people who received help from Obama after sending him a letter.

There was never a follow up story.

walter said...

Matthew Sablan said...Too bad another Trump is a stupid asshole story got in the way of journalism. Funny how that keeps happening.
--
Yep. but when journos are desperately working to deflect from their own "hack"-ery, there will be no end to it.

walter said...

Blogger bgates said...
That story does include a quote from Obama saying he writes those checks.
--
They got iPods with 'bama speechifyin'.
i.e. not follow up material.

narciso said...



Now as to what's actually going on over there:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MENASTREAM/status/921424509894385665?p=v

richard mcenroe said...

Any time Slate says 'have a discussion' I hwar 'listen to a lecture and don't talk back. Why is that?

Yancey Ward said...

He is free to do what he wishes with his own money, President or not. However, I think he will find that this was probably mistake- such acts do tend to draw con-artists.

jaydub said...

Not being a lawyer (thank you God!) I have a hard time understanding how a spontaneous, private and unsolicited gift, made without any conditions on or expectations from the recipient, could ever be considered to be illegal or unethical. I get that "because I hate Trump" is all the reason that some require, but what is the point in writing bullshit if your intended audience is capable of looking at your comments and saying "aha, that's bullshit." What have you accomplished and why are you wasting peoples' time? Chuck? Unknown? Anyone?

Saint Croix said...

I got so mad by the "charity is bad" theme of this thread that I started maligning The Washington Post for its attacks on Christians in 1993. Which is off-topic, and proof positive that I was too mad to read the damn WaPo article from beginning to end, or think clearly before I attacked it, too. Anyway, that's why I deleted at 4:48. Like Nixon covering his shit up. Delete! Delete! Abort my mistake at 4:48!

Anyway, what the Washington Post reporters did was call up a bunch of survivors of deceased soldiers and ask them about their phone calls from Donald Trump. I am guessing--but do not know--that those reporters probably heard an earful from bereaved family members about how their questions were intrusive, obnoxious, disrespectful, petty, and really ugly. And it probably gave the WaPo reporters some perspective about how hard it is to call up people who lose their adult children in a war zone.

I am guessing the WaPo journalists had sympathy for Donald Trump after their phone calls, because the headline of their article is uncharacteristically positive for the president. "Trump offered a grieving military father $25000 in a phone call." That headline shows his charity, compassion, his desire to help. Almost all the other news outlets focused on Trump's failure to follow up and do what he said. And Trump immediately sent a check. Because he remembered the phone call.

It reminds me of Trump's loose comment about Puerto Rican debt ("we'll wipe that out") while he's in the middle of trying to help an island ravaged by a hurricane. It's a good, charitable impulse. And the promise to the soldier's father was not made for p.r. purposes, or to make Trump look good. That's what public charity is for. Private, secret charity is impressive (which is why Christ instructs us to do it that way).

If Trump had followed up and mailed his check in secret, that would have been really impressive. His failure to follow up got him still more bad press. But the lesson to learn is not "charity is bad" or "you shouldn't offer $25,000 to strangers" or "charity corrupts the recipient" or "The WaPo hates Christians."

The lesson to learn is that if you're offering specific help to people, you got to follow up.

Saint Croix said...

Original WaPo article here.

Henry said...

Well I would say that it is inappropriate. But I found this interesting:

The existing system of compensation works. The status quo satisfies. If it doesn’t, then there’s a real conversation to be had....

Does the existing system work? Maybe there's a conversation to be had.

And "the status quo works" -- everyone is a Burkean conservative when it suits them.

CStanley said...

My opinion is that this was a well meaning but not well thought out gesture on Trump's part.

This plus the whole phone call kerfuffle got me thinking about how I think the contacts should best be handled. I think if I were president I'd do something like this:

1. Once a year have an event at the White House to which all Gold star families are invited.

2. Direct the military branches to send me summaries in a timely manner of all troop deaths, with biographical information and details of how the deaths occurred.

3. Write letters once a month based on those reports...for expediency, I'd have a form letter but would try to include one or more details that I'd learned from those reports.

But no phone calls or making stuff up as I get along, because I'd be too concerned that some families would feel hurt that they didn't get the special treatment. So if I was a wealthy president like Trump, I'd probably also donate a great deal of money to veterans causes but not offer individual assistance like he did in this case.

Phil 3:14 said...

CStanley,

A well thought out, logical plan meant to modestly celebrate the servicemens sacrifice and acknowledge the families pain.


Not Trump.

Michael K said...

Trump means well and is trying to do a good job.

He has had a career as a real estate developer, which stands him in good stead negotiating with people like the Chinese and the Norks.

He has also been a promoter and salesman. Here, I think his weaknesses show, as his excessive adjectives in speech that is almost a tic.

Let's face it. Most of the US government, of both parties, is corrupt.

The current Russia0Uranium scandal is evidence that Democrats are corrupt and cannot be trusted to govern.

The Republican immediate welshing on promises of Obamacare repeal suggests that they are no better.

They respond to donors who do not have the best interests of the public in mind.

We have a serious "faithless agent " problem. The people in government of both parties have decided to go for their own best interest and ignore the welfare of the country.

Only a rich man like Trump could ever be expected to oppose them.

MikeR said...

Long before Mr. Trump became anything but a on-again off-again billionaire, we Jews had a story about him. It was told in the Orthodox community that some Chasid from (say) Williamsburg had pulled over to help somebody fix a tire. Turned out it was Donald Trump. When he got back home to Williamsburg, the guy found out that Trump had paid off his mortgage.
Probably he does stuff like that. Not consistently, but when the spirit moves him.
Mr. Trump has all manner of character flaws. This doesn't seem like a big one.