Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is so upset that President Trump has cancelled payments to the UN Green Fund, he is sending his own money to the UN.
Mike Bloomberg doubles down to ensure America will fulfill the Paris Agreement
Today, Mike Bloomberg, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, announced a commitment of up to $15 million to support the operations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretariat, including its work to help countries implement their commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Bloomberg will also work with other governments and philanthropies that may be interested in supporting the UNFCCC at this critical time. The pledge aims to fill a significant funding gap that comes as a result of President Donald Trump’s announced withdrawal from the Paris agreement and proposed steep budget cuts for international programs, including on climate.
“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Bloomberg. “Just the opposite – we are forging ahead. Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing onto a statement of support that we will submit to the UN – and together, we will reach the emission reduction goals the U.S. made in Paris in 2015. As a sign of our commitment, Bloomberg Philanthropies, in partnership with others, will make up the approximately $15 million in funding that the U.N.’s Climate Secretariat stands to lose from Washington. Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up – and there isn’t anything Washington can do to stop us.”
Patricia Espinosa, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said “We are grateful to Bloomberg Philanthropies for this generous contribution. While funding from governments remains central to our work, this kind of support is crucial for the work of the Secretariat to assist nations in their efforts to implement their commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement. In order to achieve Paris in full and deliver a low emissions, resilient and more secure future for every man, woman and child, it is very encouraging to see that all actors reaffirm their willingness to work together.”
Trump indicated the administration will terminate all support for UN climate change efforts. This would slash the US contribution to the operations of the UNFCCC – the climate negotiating body of the UN — creating an immediate gap. It will also cut previously promised funding for the Green Climate Fund, which provides billions of dollars in support for developing countries to meet their Paris Agreement commitments. The Green Climate Fund recently launched a request for proposals from private sector companies to cut emissions or improve climate resilience in developing countries, offering a total $500 million in funding overall.
From 2014 to 2016, Bloomberg Philanthropies supported the UNFCCC – the climate negotiating body of the UN – for its work with “non-state actors” including cities, states and businesses. Bloomberg Philanthropies can fill the gap left by the US government backing out of its commitments. Support would be allocated to cover staff costs in Bonn, Germany associated with their climate negotiations and communications efforts.
About Bloomberg Philanthropies: Bloomberg Philanthropies works in more than 120 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on five key areas for creating lasting change: Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation and Public Health. Bloomberg Philanthropies encompasses all of Michael R. Bloomberg’s charitable activities, including his foundation and his personal giving. In 2016, Bloomberg Philanthropies distributed over half a billion dollars. For more information, please visit bloomberg.org or follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter @BloombergDotOrg.
Media Contact:
Rebecca Carriero, rebeccac@bloomberg.org +1-212-205-0182
This move simply reinforces my perception of President Trump’s genius when it comes to getting a good deal for US taxpayers. There never was any need for the USA to put taxpayer’s money into the UN Green Fund – rich virtue signallers like Bloomberg are happy to pick up the tab.
Now if only Trump can persuade Bloomberg to pick up the tab for the USA’s entire UN contribution. Maybe we could define all UN contributions as “green money”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Liberals give less to charity than conservatives. The L’s think its the govt’s job to succor the poor.
So, I don’t expect to see a lot of L’s coughing up money on their own. They love to spend other people’s money.
I am reading Rising Star. The “liberal” mindset doesn’t change. It’s not complicated if you follow the money.
It’s not other people’s money. It’s the US federal government’s. That’s the big prize. Unlimited funds. The USG creates the USD. Instead of spending those USDs on the US people, providing free healthcare and free university education, they want the creation of USD to go to their transnational bank accounts.
The USG doesn’t create the USD. It borrows the $$$ from the Fed – which is a private company. Now you know where the real money is.
…and the Fed has been completely opposed to any audit whatsoever (as if they had the collateral to make the huge loans to the US Government in the first place).
An interesting aspect of this relationship is the consequences to any US president that has suggested that the US Government issue its own currency (they have to guarantee what the Fed provides, so why not?)–every such president has been shot.
Consequence or conspiracy theory? You’re free to draw your own conclusions.
Dead wrong, ferdberple.
The USG creates physical cash, which is only 11% to 12% to all USD, through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, a US Treasury department. Banks that want to increase their vault cash must put up 100% of their demand in collateral to a Federal Reserve Agent at one of the 12 District Federal Reserve Banks before they can get it.
The USG creates treasury securities, which are a cash equivalent, and sells them at public auction to US businesses including banks, US households and individuals, and foreign governments and investors. The Federal Reserve is not allowed to purchase these BY LAW. The act of selling treasury securities at public auction is termed “borrowing,” a horrific misnomer but a leftover from the gold-standard days which the US has not been on domestically since 1934.
The Federal Reserve is not a private corporation. I don’t care what G. Edward Griffin claims. He’s wrong. And so are you. Do your homework.
The US Treasury can only issue treasury securities in amounts that Congress has authorized in appropriation (or “spending”) bills, whether past congressional sessions or present.
Last year, for example, the US Treasury issued $95.6 trillion in new USD. See the end-of-year Daily Treasury Statement Table III-A on page 2 of 2 here: https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=16093000.pdf
People should pay for their own university education like people used to do. Go to school part- time and work part-time to pay for an education. Or go to night-school and work full time.
Borrow money to take courses that don’t lead to jobs, and expect to pay-off loans.
Barbara,
Before 1970, people worked part-time to pay for their room and board and/or food. Not for their education. University education was either free (majority of the country) or a nominal fee. In CA, for example, state students paid something like $58/semester; out-of-state students and foreigners paid way more. CA state property taxes, like most states, paid to educate their kids until the elites got Reagan to abolish high property taxes and replace needed revenue with a variety of higher state income taxes that shifted the revenue burden to the poor and working class.
Private universities, like Princeton, charged for education. It was up to $650/year in the 1950s.
RockyRoad
Completely incorrect. Another common myth, perpetuated mostly by Ron Paul (a decent man, but misinformed).
”How the Federal Reserve Is Audited”
https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed35.html
”All Federal Reserve Banks and branches, like commercial depository institutions, are audited and examined regularly.
Internal audits are conducted by a permanent audit staff at each Reserve Bank. Each audit staff is headed by a general auditor who reports directly to the Bank’s board of directors. In addition, a private CPA firm conducts an annual examination of each Reserve Bank and its branches on behalf of the Federal Reserve Board. External audits were instituted in recent years in place of annual examinations by the Board of Governors to ensure total independence in this process.”
You can read them here. They are included in the Federal Reserve Annual Reports, along with the name of the private and independent CPA firm hired in any given year to conduct it: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/annual-report.htm
RockyRoad
You got a buck in your pocket? Pull it out and look at it.
Look at the titles of the two signatures: “Secretary of the Treasury’” (right side), and “Treasurer of the United States” (left side).
It doesn’t say Chairman of the Federal Reserve anywhere on that bill, nor does the Chairman of the Fed sign it.
The seal on the face side says “The Department of the Treasury,” not the Federal Reserve. On the back, there are two seals that make up the front and back of The Great Seal of the United States.
The only place on that bill that mentions the Federal Reserve is across the top of the face side: “Federal Reserve Note.” And “Note” doesn’t mean what you think it means. It does not mean that the Federal Reserve issued it or owns it, which is what most people think it means.
”Note” is a time-honored word for a liability. A mortgage is alternatively called a note. A car loan is alternatively called a note.
“Federal Reserve Note” means that the Federal Reserve is legally obligated to accept that dollar as legal tender for the payment of taxes and all debts denominated in USD. That’s all it means—conspiracists of the G Edward Griffin ilk notwithstanding.
Macroeconomist Paul McCulley explains it simply here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdhv2WuoYGM [He talks really slowly, suggest you speed it up under the gear in the lower right.]
The United States of America issues the USD, issues the currency, issues the “unit of account” of the USG, and that dollar bill proves it.
MRW
“Before 1970, people worked part-time to pay for their room and board and/or food. Not for their education.”
I guess those of us that worked during high school, saved enough for tuition, went to Co op schools were foolish.
Maybe a college education was free in California and some other states but many of us went to “private engineering factories”, mostly living at home and paid our own Tuition bills. Of course most of those schools were built by the local rich folk who gave back to society. Furthermore, then a good College degree was a no nonsense program, no place for buttercups. Professors spent time in class teaching instead of studying who knows what? When you are paying your own way one is more interested in getting through and getting a good paying job.
Of course the opportunity I enjoyed has been destroyed by the government, the universities, and others, it is impossible to save enough on part time jobs to pay the outrageous tuition bills of today. There was no such thing as student loans. I feel sorry for parents who struggle to pay the outrageous tuition bills today.
Has the government made things better?
I agree with you, Catcracking.
When I got my first Masters at Rutgers in the mid-70s, it cost me $458/semester, so $916 for the year. I got my second Masters from Columbia at the end of the 70s, not half a decade later. Price? $12,000/year. The NYC bankers by that time had figured out how to turn Columbia and NYU (via bankers installed on their boards) into real estate powerhouses under the rubric of ‘protecting our endowment’. And it’s only got worse. That disease has spread across America. Deans and college prezzies go along with because they are paid a fortune to.
I blame our spineless Congress who want those bank lobby dollars, the federal government failing to clamp down, and the collusion of the banks. And have our universities produced better students? All they seem to learn is identity politics and sobbing about it.
Engineering schools seem to turn out pros, but I’m no expert. I do know that the engineering schools in Canada and the US are considered the best in the world, which is why China is sending their best students here to get advanced training so they can beat us back home. [It’s also why I think those students should be forced to spend 10 years here after earning graduate and advanced engineering degrees instead of going home to best us at our own businesses. Those 10 years are critical: they’ll meet spouses, have children, maybe buy a house, develop some loyalty to this country. But that’s just me. But I’ll probably get accused of being xenophobic for such thinking.]
RockyRoad
You got a buck in your pocket? Pull it out and look at it.
Look at the titles of the two signatures: “Secretary of the Treasury’” (right side), and “Treasurer of the United States” (left side).
It doesn’t say Chairman of the Federal Reserve anywhere on that bill, nor does the Chairman of the Fed sign it.
The seal on the face side says “The Department of the Treasury,” not the Federal Reserve. On the back, there are two seals that make up the front and back of The Great Seal of the United States.
The only place on that bill that mentions the Federal Reserve is across the top of the face side: “Federal Reserve Note.” And “Note” doesn’t mean what you think it means. It does not mean that the Federal Reserve issued it or owns it, which is what most people think it means.
”Note” is a time-honored word for a liability. A mortgage is alternatively called a note. A car loan is alternatively called a note.
“Federal Reserve Note” means that the Federal Reserve is legally obligated to accept that dollar as legal tender for the payment of taxes and all debts denominated in USD. That’s all it means—conspiracists of the G Edward Griffin ilk notwithstanding.
Macroeconomist Paul McCulley explains it simply here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdhv2WuoYGM [He talks really slowly, suggest you speed it up under the gear in the lower right.]
The United States of America issues the USD, issues the currency, issues the “unit of account” of the USG, and that dollar bill proves it.
Catcracking, economic historian Michael Hudson wrote an article about this just last week called “Are Students a Class?”
http://michael-hudson.com/2017/05/are-students-a-class/
Hudson started working for the big banks on Wall Street in the 60s. His job then? To figure out how to impoverish Latin American countries with debt servitude for his employers. He got out of that. He’s in his mid-70s now, still going like a house on fire. He’s seen it all. I think you’ll find his explanation for what is happening now, and why, interesting.
Bloomberg Philanthropies , in partnership with others, is making up the deficit in funding the UNFCC secretariat administrative costs it stands to lose from Washington. This seems to approximate the $15 million mentioned.
This is chump change and does not address the loss of ( some?) of the US payments ($3 billion ) to date to the Green Climate Fund and the many billions to follow if the US remained in the Paris Accord.
The US would have been committed for perhaps $24 billion of the $100 billion targeted by 2020. In addition to the Green fund, there was a call at Bonn recently for a further $300 billion to be raised annually.
Will Bloomberg, the US states, cities and ( celebrity) individuals pony up real money for this noble cause?
It underlines the central issue in President Trump exiting Paris.
Good summary. If 15 million was all the CAGW alarmists needed, it would be of zero consequence. This is a trillion dollar scam attempting to place disparate sovereign nations under ever greater international control of unelected socialists.
Agree with you, but they’re not socialists. They’re profiteers.
the Paris accord is/was an attempt to make the rich countries pay for the developing countries’ green energy, mostly nuclear. It is a re-distribution of wealth, argued from the principle that there is / was a debt to be paid.
However 1)
IMHO nuclear is not a safe or good replacement for fossil fuel…..it causes much more H2O (g) which is a stronger GH gas than CO2….
However 2)
there should be a clause that the country giving the support should get a guarantee that the developing country that gets its support would buy its ‘green’ energy on offer.
For example, it seems clear to me from recent press reports, that aid going to India [from the EU and USA) would be spend in Russia for nuclear plants. So, I am asking, what is Russia paying?
Trump wisely picked up on this and rejected the deal, as it stands today. He is a good businessman.
Everyone seems to forget President Trump is a good businessman. They are distracted by the sideshows as he moves forward.
lets see eeeelon donate your taxfunds hes scored back!;-)
No sh*****t, ozspeaksup. Elon, a transplanted South African, has scammed the federal monetary system big time to pay for his lavish schemes and lifestyle.
Bloomberg’s efforts should be matched by Oh Bummer, Soros, Clintons, Gore, Mann, etc.
These jerks will easily achieve the billions required to boost Robert Mugabe and Joe Zuma’s Swiss bank accounts.
But no, it’s the poor in the rich countries that wind up paying for the rich in the poor countries.
Agree, good point that gets missed everyday
It is very interesting to look at Der Spiegel’s report on President Trump’s Paris exit.- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
The president’s speech looked at the numbers and showed that the Paris agreement was ineffective at reducing emissions and unfair on the USA.
Der Spiegel opens with the title- “Donald Trump’s Triumph of Stupidity” and goes on to say “His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest. In Trump’s mind, the climate agreement is an instrument allowing other countries to enrich themselves at the expense of the United States”.
Their conclusion is that- “ It’s America against the rest of the world, along with Syria and Nicaragua, the only other countries that haven’t signed the Paris deal.”
I find it amazing that after so many billions have been spent on researching Climate Change there is still a chasm between opposing viewpoints as to what is fact.
This chasm is why a GOP-branded or Trump-backed site is needed to defend Trump’s exit statement and climate skepticism. Such a site couldn’t be ignored by the mainstream the way current skeptic sites have been. Its arguments would have to be engaged with.
Trump Admin can simply seize these illegally transferred funds and direct them to the border wall. Win/win! Bankrupt Bloomberg and build wall.
$15 million? That’s not even enough to cover the bureaucrats salaries.
Or bribes.
Bloomberg is short by a couple of zeros.
I doubt Al Gore or Di Paprio will be “green” enough to follow suit.
or that Seyers guy.
There is nothing in it for them.
Maybe Elon Musk can use some of the government subsidies he has squirreled away.
Come on all you yapping multi-millionaires. put your money where your yapping is.
If Bloomberg really believes in man made climate change, why did he wait so long to help out? And where are all the other rich liberals with their donations? We all know the answer. (Methinks Bloomber is not a very popular man with the rich elites right now)
Tom, let’s take your concept a bit further: Every time a loudmouth cries about the U.S. exiting Paris, a coordinated effort should be made to shame the fool for his not putting his money where his mouth is.
Just my two cents. But I don’t get why so many here jumped right into the idea of spending the supposed savings of Climexit on some kind of other foreign aid? We have plenty of places right here where those funds could be used that would better serve us. A Social Security system that is on the path to failure and already has failed to keep the promises it made. A trillion or so about to go to much needed infrastructure improvements. A VA that is failing miserably. Etc, etc, etc……..
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the need and benefits of judiciously applied foreign aid. I just don’t get where so many here seem to have jumped right to the idea those funds should be used outside the US?
Are Mikey and his friends going to shell out for the Paris Accord Green fund?
The agreement’s objective is to set a Green Fund funding floor of $100 billion/year (see figure 1 attached link) to waste on whatever, including a funds for a massive new UN bureaucracy.
The Paris Accord is a future legal black hole, to justify/help legal action, to get forced funding and forced action.
The Lefty/Socialists/Cult of CAGW nefarious plan is to make the Paris Accord in the future legally binding and/or to expand the world courts mandate to address the climate change crimes (i.e. Countries that do not take ‘action’ or pay necessary funds to run the scam.)
http://www.climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/GCF%20and%20Paris%20Brief%202016.new_.pdf
Comments:
Ignoring the fact that the entire Paris Accord was/is based on fake science. The IPCC fake equation (Bern Equation) for the estimated retention time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 200 years and 22% of the emitted CO2 is estimated to stay in the earth’s atmosphere for greater than 1000 years.
During the Paris Accord, the developing countries argue that the developed countries should be responsible for all of their past CO2 emissions, in terms of determining how much the developed countries should be forced to pay into the Green Fund.
So how long would it take green tinged leeches, wastrels and hangers on to burn their way through 15 million dollars? 1 or 2 days? 15 minutes?
AND SO… for the cost of ~90 seconds of Super Bowl halftime advertising ($5m/30sec), he’ll get days of face-time on the gliberal media. A bargain really. If he really wants to broadcast his message he should invest a cool $1 billion and take out a REAL Super Bowl halftime ad — a whole hour and a half. Sports fans, can’t you just feel the love?
FUN FACT FOR THE DAY: At $5m/30sec, Super Bowl halftime ad cost of reading John Galt’s speech: ~$1.8 billion dollars. Thanks to this helpful source and especially to Amber, who invites you to read it yourself. And I highly recommend this brilliantly conceived reading with interesting visual clips. FOOTBALL WILL NEVER BE THE SAME
The key phrase in all that was “a commitment of up to” with emphases on “up to.” Bloomberg could send them just $10,000, pocket change for him, and still claim credit.
$15million?
He’s a bit short
The “Price Tag” is
$1billion
15 million usd is still a ridiculous amount compared to the 300 billion the USA should have paid. But well it’s fine by me, trumps decision is definitely the right one. The planet will be fine in a century wether we do something for the climate or not. The climate has always changed and it will keep doing so.
Regarding this, I’ve recently realized that the current rate of sea level rise, despite the adjustments made to it by the corrupt scientists, is not alarming nor unprecedented at all. According to geologists, the sea level was 125 meters below the current at the minimum of the last ice age, 25000 years ago. Even if we put aside the fact that a more rapid rate of sea level rise occurred between 15000 and 5000 years ago, the average sea level rise until now is 50mm per year, compared to the 32mm of “adjuted” sea level rise that climate scientists report for the last few decades.
But now sea levels are rising rapidly due to all the climate alarmists’ tears! Oh well, at least it’s salt water and won’t totally dilute the oceans’ salinity.
“rapid rate of sea level rise occurred between 15000 and 5000 years ago”
In actuality, the most recent “rapid rate of sea level rise” occurred between 21,000 and 8,000 years BP, with a really rapid “rise” occurring between the 15K and 14.5K BP dates, as per the following proxy graph.
And ps, the near-surface air temperatures had to have been pretty “hot”, during both winters and summers, …… to melt that much glacial ice in that short of time (500+ years).
SCC,
“…the near-surface air temperatures had to have been pretty “hot”, during both winters and summers, …… to melt that much glacial ice in that short of time (500+ years).”
Or at least above freezing most of the time.
Right you are, Clyde S, …… because most of the “summer melt” will simply “re-freeze” when the precipitation returns with the “freezing” winter storms.
Julien, the problem with your math is it ignores the fact that SL has fluctuated.
Within the past 7000 years sea levels were likely one to two meters higher then current levels.
I do of course agree that the current rate of rise ( maybe 1.5 mm per year) is of little consequence relative to past rates of SL change.
Proves this has nothing to do with “climate” and everything to do with money. From the bottom of my heart, thank you, President Trump. Now get someone from the EPA to present a slideshow, Algorian style, rebutting the flawed modelling and the “science” that flows from them.
It had been just as good for the worlds climate if mr Bloomberg sent his money to me…
I’m going to donate “up to” $15 billion as well. I will pay it all out over the next 1000 years (from my estate when I am gone). I’ll begin with my first installment of $1.00 for the current fiscal year. Additional amounts over the coming 999 years will be dependent upon how much others are willing to contribute to my “fund” and how much the fund is able to earn in the future. Of course payments will need to be reduced somewhat by the management fees I’ll need to extract for my time and effort, but be assured I’ll pay out “up to” $15 billion. Of course, if the fund goes broke in the next 5 years, well, who is gonna notice?
Has the Pope offered up anything out of the massive Catholic Church’s money pile? He seems to have a big mouth, but does he have a big wallet?
He’s offered advice…
http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/themes/care-creation/stories/church-tackling-climate-change-ground/
Great point Griff. The Church has always supported the true science through out history. Or maybe not.
I’m not surprised that the church would file that little edict of quasi-biblically derived truism in a subfolder named “stories”.
The church is legalized extortion. Give us your money or you will burn in hell. They believe in other people giving so they can receive, thus ensuring that the faithful follow scripture.
Ferd
That is exactly the same as the climate change extortion!! Lol!
Arthur, good point, he probably needs the money to maintain the wall that he has but decries the fact that we need one. I Normally respect the Church but this guy makes it difficult
Japan seems to be very confused , not to mention stupid as hell. They still have all but 4 of their 80 sum nuclear reactors offline, despite years of evaluations of their plant’s safety systems, sometime accompanied by changes in equipment and policies. All of their plants have gone thru an extensive
system of checks, yet they are still importing oil and LPG to run power generators for their electricity, an this is cosing thme a lot of money, plus increasing their emissions enormously. I do not know if the Japanese have been intelligent enough to copy the U.S. systems of emergency centers that can airlift all of the equipment required to prevent any major accidents at any of our nuclear facilities, which are mnitored full time I believe by representatives from the NRC. None of the accidents that have occurred at Western nucear plants, including Japan’s of several years back due to the tsunami flooding, would have resulted in any damage to the reactors had this system been in place at that time. The U.S. has two emergency centers located on both sides of the country. It would probably be virtually impossible at this point for a nuclear plant malfunction of any conceivable type to do major damage to either plant or its personnel. The public, naturally, remains totally ignorant of all this, compliments of the anti-nuclear (and also very ignorant), news media.
Bloomberg Philanthropies and others gives $15M. They get good PR among their donor base of other rich people. They get virtue signaling that not only are they saving the world, but they are also fighting for the “revolution” against evil rich white guys (forget that the donors are rich white guys and their wives).
Bloomberg is no dummy. They will get far more in donations than the $15M that they spend.
Now if he gave personally the $2B that Trump isn’t extracting from the American taxpayers, I would be impressed.
He’ll probably spew plenty of CO2 jet-setting somewhere for a photo-op where he can provide one of those giant cardboard replica checks.
So Bloomberg Philanthropies is paying Michael Bloomberg his salary for being “Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change” and Michael Bloomberg pays to Bloomberg Philanthropies a portion of his wealth yearly as a charitable contribution, and gets a tax deduction, on his Federal Tax form.
Ponzi Scheme!
I hope his pledge is legally binding. Paying it from his own pocket would be really impressive.
Both of his daughters also sit on the Board of Directors. One is uniquely qualified, having spent her career as an equestrian rider.
Michael Bloomberg isn’t wanting for money and devotes millions/billions towards philanthropic endeavors. I wouldn’t call it a Ponzi scheme. He’s also not like Gore or the Clintons.
It is a nice example of a family enterprise. Contrast it with the Trump’s totally dysfunctional family, where Ivanka and Melanie are – pardon, were – both running their own business. And Democrats accuse Trump of turning the government into a family business.
“Trump’s totally dysfunctional family” Really? They are highly successful and from all appearances quite stable. What definition of “dysfunctional” are you using? Compared to who? The Kennedys? The Pelosi Clan? The Reids of Nevada?