TOTALLY GEEKED!

You the one that tried to prove something via FACEBOOK! Thats one of the most retarded things you have posted. Just showing how ridiculous that post was...

Prove me wrong. Your stupid Facebook link is just that. Stupid...

Ohfour wrote:

---

You the one that tried to prove something via FACEBOOK! Thats one of the most retarded things you have posted. Just showing how ridiculous that post was...

---

 I hate the use of that word in that context. If you want to use it to mean slowed down, as in the original meaning, fine. But this is not ok. 

I did some searching and these are the facts that I have found. I will attach links as much as possible or at least who said it and when.

According to the US Department of Veteran's Affairs as of December 2015 there were, indeed, 21.8 million vets in our country. Our general population is 319.2 million people. According to the site Facebook Veterans for Trump there are 13, 103 vets currently supporting Trump. FB is the only "official" site I could find that would report how many vets intended to vote for him since it is voluntary reporting. I couldn't find an "official" data site that had any numbers. So I will warn you that number came off the Vets for Trump site on FB. I'm trying to be fair here. I'll add every number I can find flattering or not.

Moving along, one reporter wrote on his blog, yes this is an opinion piece, that there is much division over who the vets will vote for. Here is what he said. It was a very short opinion piece in Newmax magazine. "As more Republicans say they will not support Donald Trump as the party's presidential nominee, at least one might actually endorse the expected Democratic nominee, according to "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd.

"I heard real, real speculation today from very informed people that at least one Republican Senate incumbent, if given the choice, might publicly endorse Hillary Clinton," Todd said during Tuesday's night's election coverage on MSNBC.
"An incumbent senator, there's at least one that I've heard that could end up doing that, making that choice," Todd said. "Not because they want to, but because they need to send that message."

Many Republicans in Congress are running for re-election in blue states, he said, and feel the need to distance themselves from Trump.

"That's what's going on here," Todd said, "and on the day that the Republican front-runner might cement his lead."

Here's a story by John Noonan in the National Review: Running scared from a debate hosted by Megyn Kelly in Iowa, Donald Trump instead hosted an Iowa event to, according to his campaign, “raise money for the Veterans and Wounded Warriors, who have been treated so horribly by our all talk, no action politicians.” The $6 million raised went, curiously, straight to Donald Trump’s campaign website — an odd way to fundraise. That money, equally curiously, has yet to find its way to veterans’ groups. When Donald Trump demanded a $5 million ransom from CNN to appear in their December debate, he also used veterans as a foil. Trump claimed he would donate proceeds to wounded warriors. His interest in veterans is sudden. Forbes reported that of the $5.5 million the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave to charity, “only $57,000 has been donated to seven organizations that directly benefit military veterans or their families.” That’s the rough equivalent of a Ford Expedition. It’s a weak showing for a billionaire who claims to be the champion of America’s service members. The fact is, Trump hasn’t done a damn thing for veterans. America’s veterans aren’t dopes. Most recognize a cheap political stunt when they see it. Debates scare Trump silly. So he wears veterans’ service like Kevlar, hoping the nobility of their sacrifice can shield him from the hostility of tough questions. It’s not unexpected behavior from a man who, to judge from his multiple draft deferments, has proven more than happy to let others do the fighting for him. The fact is, Trump hasn’t done a damn thing for veterans. But put that aside for a moment. America’s veterans aren’t looking for handouts. They ask what they can do for the country, not what the country can do for them. So it’s no surprise that Trump thinks they are a demographic purchased as easily as cheap plot of real estate, and treats them as little more than human shields against incoming political fire. When Americans swear an oath to the Constitution, they are not just raising their hand in defense of a scrap of sheepskin. They vow to protect the rights and values enshrined therein. Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet America’s veterans swore to protect the weak against the strong. Trump boasts of being strong but attacks the weak. When veterans took their oath to uphold the Constitution, they swore to uphold freedom of speech and the press. Trump wants to soften libel laws so that when reporters “write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” Veterans swore to protect religious liberty. Trump signaled openness to a “database” of Americans of Muslim identity, a prospect that would be of little help in the war on terrorism, is clearly unconstitutional, and summons the specter of a dark historical period in Germany. Veterans swore to uphold the law, including treaties such as Geneva Convention and the international Law of Armed Conflict. Trump endorses war crimes such as torture and deliberate bombing of civilians. Veterans must oppose Trump because they all took an oath in defense of America, the Constitution, and the values Americans hold dear. Veterans swore to uphold domestic laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits involvement of the U.S. military in law-enforcement matters. Trump declares he would deport 11 million people, a measure that in practice would mean National Guardsmen kicking in doors and rushing families off in the middle of the night. Veterans promise to protect a society that values, above all else, human dignity and the equality of man. Trump uses social media to amplify voices of the white-supremacist movement and has been endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. Trump vows to rebuild the military but endorses the unpopular trillion dollars’ worth of Obama-era defense cuts. Trump pledges to fight ISIS with an intricate strategy of “bomb their oil” and “take their oil” — presumably in that order. He has not elaborated on how many of America’s sons and daughters would be deployed to the Middle East to seize said oil reserves. Trump promises to “make Mexico pay” for a 2,000-mile border wall, a hypothetical monolith that would cost Mexicans a substantial portion of their GDP. He has not elaborated on the methods of coercion needed to force our third-largest trading partner to surrender a heavy share of its treasury. One wonders whether, when the inevitable trade war fails to produce results, Mr. Trump would consider quarantine, blockade, or violence to make good on his campaign promise. More Donald Trump Being Presidential Is Not in Trump’s DNA Trump: 'All I Know Is What's on the Internet' Trump: 'I've Instructed My People' to Explore Helping Man Who Sucker Punched Protester Military members and veterans are taught to honor the service of those who gave all, particularly those who endured years of torture at the hands of the Hanoi government during the Vietnam War. Trump mocks those who were “shot down,” calling his effort to avoid sexually transmitted diseases his “own Vietnam.” While John McCain and other heroes fought the VC, Mr. Trump, as he brags, fought VD. Veterans should oppose Trump not because he’s used them as cheap political props, and not because he exhibited zero interest in their struggles before they became politically useful to him. Rather, veterans must oppose him because they all took an oath in defense of America, the Constitution, and the values Americans hold dear. Mr. Trump has made a mockery of those values. He must be defeated.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/432162/veterans-donald-trump-oppose-constitution-military

This came directly off the veterans for Trump page. Charles Bloom
March 11 at 11:10pm · Richland, WA, United States ·

As a veteran, this transcends politics for me. He already had one "fake" fundraiser for veterans that no one can trace where the money went. Now, this time, he raised 7 million dollars for veterans, but very little of that many has actually made it to charities.

I would like a full accounting of where all of the money raised by Trump for veterans ends up. I am getting the suspicion that this was a political ploy using veterans, and if so - this is potentially fraud. Fundraisers of this sort give people who are burned second thoughts about giving to veterans groups again, as well as takes money that might have otherwise been donated to reputable charities that very much need the funds to help veterans.

If it can be shown where this money went, I will change my tone and publicly praise Trump for using his moment in the sun to do something good.

www.msnbc.com/msnbc/veterans-groups-outside-iowa-still-waiting-trump-money

Veterans groups outside Iowa and NH still waiting on Trump money
02/09/16 07:21 AM
facebook twitter 1 save share group 86
By Eric Salzman

While his Republican rivals debated in Des Moines, Iowa, late last month, Donald Trump was just miles away at Drake University holding a fundraiser for veterans. The Republican presidential front-runner said he personally donated $1 million, and, all told, the event reportedly raised $6 million for veterans groups. A corresponding website says an additional $1.67 million dollars has been raised online.

Yet, to date, most of that money has not reached the organizations the Trump Foundation identified as recipients.

Of course, charitable giving can take time. Organizations with knowledge of the process explained that money distributed by fundraisers like the one held by Trump on January 28 can reach their intended recipients almost instantly — or in some cases, months later.

RELATED: Voters still think Trump will win GOP nomination, but Cruz and Rubio are on the rise

In this case, organizations in states with early voting contests appear to be on the fast track. The Donald J. Trump Foundation put out this list of 22 organizations that would receive money from the Drake University fundraiser.

MSNBC attempted to contact all 22 of the organizations on the list. Of the 13 we were able to reach, nine organizations say they have received no funds yet. Most of those groups say they have had little to no contact with the Trump organization, save for an initial call to see if they would be open to receiving a donation.

One organization, Projects for Patriots based in Sioux City, Iowa, says it is a relatively new non-profit and is still getting its paperwork in order so that it can receive funds. Projects for Patriots is one of the few organizations that says it has heard from the Trump organization in order to get a donation set up. In fact, a representative from the group was asked to appear publicly with Trump in order to receive a check.

Also based in Iowa are the two organizations that so far have received money thanks to the Des Moines fundraiser. Just two days after the Thursday night event, Puppy Jake, an organization that helps military veterans with trained service dogs, received a check for $100,000 when three families with the group attended a campaign event with Trump in Davenport, Iowa. Another Iowa organization, Support Siouxland Soldiers, received a check for $100,000 the day before the Iowa caucuses. Founder Sarah Petersen appeared with Trump on stage at a campaign rally in Sioux City.

view photo essay
The presidential campaign: Donald Trump
“Make America Great Again.”
In New Hampshire, the Trump campaign attempted to set up a similar show. Liberty House executive director Keith Howard was invited to appear with Trump on stage at a campaign event to receive a check for his organization, which helps homeless veterans with housing. Howard was told the check would be six figures. He declined. “It would not be right for me to appear with any political candidate simply to be used as a prop or a tool,” Howard told “The Daily Beast.”

Howard said he received a phone call from two people with the Trump campaign who were disappointed with his use of the word “prop.” He felt those callers — one of them New Hampshire State Representative Al Baldasaro — implied that his comments put at risk future donations from the Trump organization. Reached by phone late afternoon Monday, Baldasaro completely rejected the notion that any such implication was made. He said he respects Howard’s decision not to appear at the campaign event.

Notably, Baldasaro was on hand with Trump on Monday in Londonderry, New Hampshire, for the presentation of an oversize check for $100,000 made out to Liberty House, even though he has no official affiliation with the organization. Baldasaro says he will forward the check to Liberty House.

RELATED: Trump shocks and awes in final New Hampshire rally before primary

Neither the Trump campaign nor the Donald J. Trump Foundation have responded to requests for comment to this story.

Several questions remain. Since not all of the organizations could be reached by MSNBC, it is unclear if more than three of the 22 groups identified to receive funds have received any money at this point. Also unclear is whether more than $300,000 of $7 million-plus raised has been distributed at this time.

One thing that is apparent, however, is that Trump has turned his charitable giving into an opportunity to be the bearer of big checks — at least in the key early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Anyway, go to FB and type in Veterans for Trump. You will be shocked by what you see.

REsearch???? You mean you googled some articles that you think prove whatever point you are trying to make?

They are going to try to Goldwater The Donald.

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Lol.
AGAIN...there are 22 million vets in the US. So 27,000 joined Vets For Trump.
That means twenty one million, nine hundred and seventy three thousand did not, Facebook notwithstanding.
You made the claim the VAST MAJORITY of them support Trump. Prove it or admit you pulled that out of your azz.

---

 O4 said most Vets SHE knows.  And 27,000 joined FB Vets for Trump, FACEBOOK.  So what we have here is a statistical comparison of 400 for Sanders and 27,000 for Trump.  Why are you babbling about 22M people?

---

 Obviously, she didn't take a statistics class or sociology in getting those 2 degrees. 

Ohfour wrote:

---

I will say this. Every single vet and every single current serving service member i know are Trump supporters. That says a lot...

---

 Yes, but NOT in the way you think...

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Well, i actually did take Statistics and Sociology, so I will pop in later with my EXPERT opinion.

---

 Hey, me, too!  Yay!  Two experts.  I'll be sure to come and concur once you post. 

burns07 wrote:

---

weltschmerz continues to misfire--nothing to see here...............

---

 And others continue to bloviate...moving on...

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

burns07 wrote:

---

weltschmerz continues to misfire--nothing to see here...............

---

 And others continue to bloviate...moving on...

flan

---

 That's Obama's forte. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I will say this. Every single vet and every single current serving service member i know are Trump supporters. That says a lot...

---

 Yes, but NOT in the way you think...

flan

---

 Wow, flan, you are going to start insulting vets now?  I'd be careful with that one.

---

 I guess the vets that support Trump now don't count.

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

I will say this. Every single vet and every single current serving service member i know are Trump supporters. That says a lot...

---

 Yes, but NOT in the way you think...

flan

---

 Wow, flan, you are going to start insulting vets now?  I'd be careful with that one.

---

 I have the utmost respect for those who served. I question the "source..."

flan

---

 What in the world do you know about respect?  You obviously have a different definition than the rest of us...

That word actually could be used for some here...

DH is a Vietnam vet, does not have FB and is a proud supporter of Trump.

I love it when FB is considered a reliable source. Bwahahaha

Have you proved they're not?

weltschmerz wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Lol.
AGAIN...there are 22 million vets in the US. So 27,000 joined Vets For Trump.
That means twenty one million, nine hundred and seventy three thousand did not, Facebook notwithstanding.
You made the claim the VAST MAJORITY of them support Trump. Prove it or admit you pulled that out of your azz.

---

 O4 said most Vets SHE knows.  And 27,000 joined FB Vets for Trump, FACEBOOK.  So what we have here is a statistical comparison of 400 for Sanders and 27,000 for Trump.  Why are you babbling about 22M people?

---

THIS is what she said when we were talking about vets.....

"The vast majority are Trump supporters... "  

She has yet to prove it.       

 

---

 Most likely are--or will be.  Veterans historically vote Republican.  There is no reason to think this election cycle will be different.  If hilarynis the nominee, she has a very negative reputation among veterans.  

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Have you proved they're not?

---

What is with you people and proving negatives? 

How the hell am  I supposed to prove that negative?

That being said, if OhFour makes the claim, she has to back it up with evidence.

Which source did she get the information from, or did she mke it up?

Tinydancer wrote:

---

What is with you and people who want to believe no one wants Trump. When he's elected, will you believe it then?

---

 Election results and polls don't seem to be enough "proof".  

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Have you proved they're not?

---

What is with you people and proving negatives? 

How the hell am  I supposed to prove that negative?

That being said, if OhFour makes the claim, she has to back it up with evidence.

Which source did she get the information from, or did she mke it up?

---

Are you really this dense?  No one is asking you to prove a negative.

 

I gave you data.  You said that was old.  Show more recent data that disputes the info from August.  Until you can do that, my data stands as true. No one is asking you to prove a negative.  Prove that the data I supplied is false.  Understand?

Tinydancer wrote:

---

What is with you and people who want to believe no one wants Trump. When he's elected, will you believe it then?

---

That vets voted him in? No.

That morons voted him in? Yes. 

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

What is with you and people who want to believe no one wants Trump. When he's elected, will you believe it then?

---

That vets voted him in? No.

That morons voted him in? Yes. 

---

 We've already proven the majority of Americans are morons based upon Obama winning not once, but twice.  So, I'll have to agree.

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Have you proved they're not?

---

What is with you people and proving negatives? 

How the hell am  I supposed to prove that negative?

That being said, if OhFour makes the claim, she has to back it up with evidence.

Which source did she get the information from, or did she mke it up?

---

Are you really this dense?  No one is asking you to prove a negative.

 

I gave you data.  You said that was old.  Show more recent data that disputes the info from August.  Until you can do that, my data stands as true. No one is asking you to prove a negative.  Prove that the data I supplied is false.  Understand?

---

Tiny just did. 

I can't prove that the 27,000 you cited won't vote for Trump. They probably will.

I can say there are 22 million vets in the US and 27,000 is a drop in the bucket and proves virtually nothing.

You said the VST MAJORITY will vote for that Neo-fascist and 27,000 out of 22 million is not the vast majority.

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

weltschmerz wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Have you proved they're not?

---

What is with you people and proving negatives? 

How the hell am  I supposed to prove that negative?

That being said, if OhFour makes the claim, she has to back it up with evidence.

Which source did she get the information from, or did she mke it up?

---

Are you really this dense?  No one is asking you to prove a negative.

 

I gave you data.  You said that was old.  Show more recent data that disputes the info from August.  Until you can do that, my data stands as true. No one is asking you to prove a negative.  Prove that the data I supplied is false.  Understand?

---

Tiny just did. 

I can't prove that the 27,000 you cited won't vote for Trump. They probably will.

I can say there are 22 million vets in the US and 27,000 is a drop in the bucket and proves virtually nothing.

You said the VST MAJORITY will vote for that Neo-fascist and 27,000 out of 22 million is not the vast majority.

---

No she didn't.  She asked you to prove me wrong.  You cannot do that...