These Trump Family Fights Are Brutal

National Review ^ | 1/4/2016 | Jim Gehahty

[conservativejoy]

You don't often see "retaliated by withdrawing the medical benefits critical to his nephew's infant child" in profiles of political front-runners.

But Sunday's New York Times article, discussing Donald Trump's relationship with his late brother Freddy, includes it at the bottom. Then came the unveiling of Fred Sr.'s will, which Donald had helped draft. It divided the bulk of the inheritance, at least $20 million, among his children and their descendants, "other than my son Fred C. Trump Jr."

Freddy's children sued, claiming that an earlier version of the will had entitled them to their father's share of the estate, but that Donald and his siblings had used "undue influence" over their grandfather, who had dementia, to cut them out.

A week later, Mr. Trump retaliated by withdrawing the medical benefits critical to his nephew's infant child. "I was angry because they sued," he explained during last week's interview. But hey, no worries; I'm sure that cutting off medical care for an infant won't come up in attack ads in the general election.

[jpsb]

You are dispictalbe, going back 35 years to dig up dirt on Trump over nothing? All Fred Trumps' family was well taken care of, all of them. If this is all you got you got NOTHING! But since you are relentless in your attacks on Trump I got one for your guy.

Keep attacking Trump and you'll get lots more.

[conservativejoy]

I realize that you see nothing wrong with mocking disabled people and that you see nothing wrong with someone cancelling the health insurance of a critically ill infant because he was angry. It takes a very cold hearted, nasty person to do either of those things.

Trump can continue his life as he has always done, too arrogant to even ask God for forgiveness. He will not take one penny of the wealth he seems to put his faith in with him when he goes. I sincerely hope he doesn’t take his sins with him, but that is his choice.

[SoFloFreeper]

Your post 69 doesn't accomplish the purpose which it needs to accomplish.

Since I defined what it "needed" to accomplish I can say "yes, it did."

We're clearly not going to agree that you're wrong about your assertions on Trump's position.

So go ahead and fire off one final volley. And to make you feel better, I won't respond. You can pretend you had a great retort that I couldn't answer, and then you can put another imaginary notch in your "told ya so" belt.

bye.

[sitetest]

It is disappointing that your attitude has devolved into “I win. you lose.” My attitude was that we have more, and newer data to add to the mix of trump’s alleged “pro-life” stance. i was thinking perhaps you, my correspondent, had more recent data, especially a possible explanation of trump’s egregious January 2015 interview, where he states “I’m pro-life,” bit then seems to slip back into the pro-baby-murder remark about timing.

Your point was “people change.” I AGREED with your point. I merely pointed out that since the alleged “change” in 2011, there is evidence in 2015 that he may have changed again. And there is justifiable concern whether he’s truly pro-life now, or, if he is, whether he will be in the future.

You didn’t respond to the fact in any of your posts to the newer data that he seemed to backtrack in the 2015 interview and is possibly still a pro-abort.

But you don’t seem to be concerned with new facts, as is your right. your opinion is your own, and you have every right to close yourself to new facts.

Thank you for the opportunity for the “last word.” I understand. Sometimes you go back and forth with a poster, and you just tire of the ping pong nature of the discussion, or the other guy writes big, long treatises (like I’m verging on, here) that you don’t feel are worth the time to rebut them. Been there. Done that.

Well, in conclusion. I wish you peace, but trump is, at best, an unreliable pro-lifer, and at worst, a pro-life fraud.