Trump To Save McMahon's Home

[RiversideGator]

Locking them up is the best solution.  Their problem is they are living on the street due to insanity or criminal laziness.  Locking them up in a secure treatment facility allows society to treat their illness.  If they are just bums, a few stints in the can might change their mind as to begging and bothering people. 

Being homeless is not considered a criminal enterprise.

It is by me and it was considered a criminal offense historically.  You just dont know the history because you have not been taught it in your government school.

So you think McMahon (an 85 year old WW2 and Korean War veteran and well known celebrity) is akin to a bum on the street?  Interesting "logic", lunican.

[RiversideGator]

Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.

I dunno.  I think its one person doing something for another.  What's being rich got to do with it? 

go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan.  look at how the people live there.  and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped.  you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.

That is apples and oranges.  In those areas, you have societal malfunction causing poverty.  In McMahon's case, an old but well liked man made a bad move.  Trump gets the appreciation, McMahon gets to stay at home.  Everyone wins.  Giving that money to Haiti or Myanmar would not change things.  They need to restructure their societies to be successful.

[Lunican]

So you think McMahon (an 85 year old WW2 and Korean War veteran and well known celebrity) is akin to a bum on the street?  Interesting "logic", lunican.

If Trump hadn't saved him you would have been forced to throw him in GitmoGatorLand to teach him a lesson.

[RiversideGator]

Sarcasm is not your best quality, lunican.   

[JeffreyS]

I always like charity where you can make a profit. We should all be so lucky to find something that helps someone and helps ourselves.   

[JeffreyS]

We all profit from this I think he was going to have to bring back Star Search.

[simms3]

I can see where people, who already hate Trump (I actually love the guy and enjoy his books, but he can be an asshole to women LoL), would get angry at him helping another rich guy.  But let's face it, so many uneducated people, and sometimes educated, and people who arent rich often hate rich people for all the money they have.  That is why the uneducated and poor are often still stuck in their situation, because they gripe all the time, remain dependent on the system, and do not focus on getting to that point.  Fact, it is rich people who basically support this country through taxes, it is rich people who donate their money to charities moreso than others because they simply have more money, it is rich people who contribute to society by funding projects and art galleries and hospital wings, it is rich people who spend more money not on themselves and pay more taxes than any other group of people, and they really do not have to give up their money to anything besides taxes.  Hate rich people all you want, but look around at all the things in our lives that benefit us on a daily basis or just enrich our lives and ask yourself, where would all this be without all the stinking rich people.  Plus without rich people, who would we look to to strive to get there some day.

[Driven1]

go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan.  look at how the people live there.  and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped.  you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.

That is apples and oranges.  In those areas, you have societal malfunction causing poverty.  In McMahon's case, an old but well liked man made a bad move.  Trump gets the appreciation, McMahon gets to stay at home.  Everyone wins.  Giving that money to Haiti or Myanmar would not change things.  They need to restructure their societies to be successful.

you're wrong here.  there are charitable organizations that everyday make a very tangible difference in the lives of the people of these countries.  without these orgs, many, many more people would die and/or go hungry every day.  helping people is not always about "changing things" or improving their society.  my view on helping people is giving them something to drink or something to eat or a place to live - even when they have the misfortune of being born in a society that needs to be restructured.  again, i stand by my conviction that MANY more people could've been helped (fed, watered, sheltered) if Trump had given the money to a reputable charity overseas.    ("Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it to me."  Matthew 25:40)  i'm not so sure i can look at Ed McMahon and compare him to starving child in Sudan and say that Ed is the "least of these".

btw, Trump "get[ting] the appreciation" - that is "winning"?  obtaining man's approval? 

[simms3]

I'm sure Trump has donated plenty to charity, although he is a democrat and statistically speaking republicans donate quite a bit more than democrats per capita, look it up people before you criticize that statement beause it is a proven fact    Anyway, what if Trump didnt want to donate any of his money on his own because a HUGE chunk of it goes to federal taxes and a large chunk of that goes to welfare, and that is "helping" people...his choice, not yours, if you are so into charity, make a billion dollars and donate it all to Haiti or Botswana or some country 

[Driven1]

his choice, not yours, if you are so into charity, make a billion dollars and donate it all to Haiti or Botswana or some country 

no one said it was anyone's choice EXCEPT his.  or did i miss where someone said it was their choice?  i think several of us were just criticizing HIS choice.  which we are perfectly free to do.

[RiversideGator]

go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan.  look at how the people live there.  and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped.  you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.

That is apples and oranges.  In those areas, you have societal malfunction causing poverty.  In McMahon's case, an old but well liked man made a bad move.  Trump gets the appreciation, McMahon gets to stay at home.  Everyone wins.  Giving that money to Haiti or Myanmar would not change things.  They need to restructure their societies to be successful.

you're wrong here.  there are charitable organizations that everyday make a very tangible difference in the lives of the people of these countries.  without these orgs, many, many more people would die and/or go hungry every day.  helping people is not always about "changing things" or improving their society.  my view on helping people is giving them something to drink or something to eat or a place to live - even when they have the misfortune of being born in a society that needs to be restructured.  again, i stand by my conviction that MANY more people could've been helped (fed, watered, sheltered) if Trump had given the money to a reputable charity overseas.    ("Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it to me."  Matthew 25:40)  i'm not so sure i can look at Ed McMahon and compare him to starving child in Sudan and say that Ed is the "least of these".

btw, Trump "get[ting] the appreciation" - that is "winning"?  obtaining man's approval? 

I didnt mean to say that Trump did this and therefore he should not also give to charity.  I meant to say that McMahon is an institution who was helped out by Trump to stay in his home.  Charity is also good.  Charity in the wrong form does not lift people out of poverty however.  It really is as simple as that.  I had no idea the initial post would lead to controversy.