monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Integrity has nothing to do with it. This is common knowledge and you can check it out easily for yourself. There were no sources indicated in your post finding fault with Trump's fund, and you routinely make reference to such (not always) well-known facts without citation.

Debra Law wrote:
Fallacy of diversion.

you wrote:
Was that good for you?

I am sympathetic to certain religious behavior, but not to the religious history in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian writings. Meaning the Bible, The Tanakh and the Qur'an.

In recent days, the Trump family has announced some steps that it says are intended to address the truckload of conflicts of interest that Donald Trump could bring to the White House next month, and that it is considering further measures. But so far, these steps fall well short of what Mr. Trump must do to protect his presidency from damaging accusations of corruption.

Experts believe that there is but one action that Mr. Trump can take to assure Americans that he is working to promote only their interests rather than his own fortune or his family’s. That is to appoint a trustee to sell his hotels and other businesses and put the proceeds into a blind trust operated by independent managers.

Since 1998, when India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, provoking global condemnation, only North Korea is known to have undertaken tests. Some experts fear that if the United States began testing again, it would risk a new arms race by opening the door to testing for many other countries that want to improve or develop nuclear arsenals.

For that reason, testing would face opposition on many fronts. “It would be unbelievably stupid of us to start testing again,” said Burton Richter, a physics Nobel laureate and emeritus professor at Stanford who has advised presidential administrations since the 1970s.

Debra Law wrote:

Have you gone mad?

That right wing nut, Cliven Bundy, once told us about the Negro, and how the Negro was better off picking cotton . . . . and I'm still waiting for you to explain your reference to benign aspects of plantations. If you want to meander away from the topic of Trump's charitable foundation and his philanthropist claims, why don't you meander back to your prior plantation diversion. That would be good.

Who is Cliven Bundey? I don't think "the negro" has any more meaning than "non college educated white men" - both are merely word groups identifying huge groups of individuals whose abilities and characters likely span the whole human spectrum. Those concepts are for racists and progressive social engineers, not wise, rational people.

Im not sure exactly what it is you are referencing with respect to plantations. Are you proposing yet another "diversion fallacy"? I do recall noting that the progressive "War on poverty" and most of the associated programs nomionally focused on lifting African Americans economically have had few of the beneficial effects promised for them but a large number of very adverse side effects, incliding, as Pat Moynihan eloquently argued a few decades ago, the breakdown of Black families as indicated by an explosion of out of wedlock births, fatherless homes and increased rates of public dependency - and, of course, the emergence of self-serving exploiters as leaders and "spokesmen". The clear beneficiaries are the growing cadre of bureaucrats and academics who administer the programs, rationalize their continuance and otherwise make money be telling others how they should live their lives and thiose same black "spokesmen" who serve as their highly paid overseers.

A few months ago spent some intersting time with and heard heard a talk by Jason Riley who discussed these matters at some length. He's a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a member of the WSJ editorial board. His book "Please Stop Helping Us " addresses this subject very well. I recommend it

Debra Law wrote:

It's the ideology that counts. For instance, that is why it is repugnant for present day Republicans to take credit for the emancipation of slaves because Abe Lincoln was a Republican. I understand that modern day conservatives often take credit for the past achievements of progressives. But please, give me an example from our country's ongoing "culture wars" where conservatives were the ones who stepped forward to champion the cause of the oppressed.

I agree with your opening statement about ideology, but dispute your conclusion about championing the oppressed. Republicans have always been for individual liberty and freedom of action, while modern Democrats , seeing themselves as champions of the oppressed, busily create authoritarian structures to give themselves more power and control of public money, ostensibly on behalf of chosen oppressed people, whom they treated loke pawns in their overly complex plans - all of which act to expand their personal and political power. Whether this is forethought and deliberate or merely a pleasant byproduct of sappy thinking is largely immaterial. Liberal politicians and bureaucrats are always among the chief beneficiaries of such programs.

The plantations Democrats propose and operate today are merely contemporary models for the benign elements of the plantations of the 18th and early 19th centruies. In fact they have done real harm, rewarding self-destructive behavior on the part of those they are "helping", encouraging the rise of the worst, most exploitive leaders from within those groups, all while ignoring, and sometiomes hindering, constructive individual behavior for self-improvement on the part of theose they are "helping".

Debra Law wrote:

And you have yet to explain your prior references to modern day "plantations". Still waiting for your backtracking and denials there.

You'll get neither . You can put that demand in the same dark place as the others.

My metaphorical reference was neither original or lacking in applicability . Much has been written (starting with Pat Moynihan three decades ago )about the failures of Liberal programs starting with "the War on Poverty " , and all that has followed. Much of it has indeed been destructive to the social and cultural fabric of those who were its nominal beneficiaries. However it also made the careers, power and status of generations of liberal bureaucrats and pontificators who gently guide the behavior and actions of the inferiors whom nature and a Democrat Adminsitration put in their paternal charge. The plantation metaphor is indeed apt.

“I’m going to get Apple to start making their computers and their iPhones on our land, not in China,” Mr. Trump said in March, a theme he repeated throughout his campaign. “How does it help us when they make it in China?”

When asked why he doesn’t lead by example and have more of his products from the Donald J. Trump Collection made in the U.S., Trump wrongly responded, “They don’t even make this stuff here.” They do.
When the interviewer cited Brooks Brothers as one example of a company that makes apparel in the U.S., Trump said, “They don’t make here, not that I see.” He’s wrong about that, too.

“I’m going to bring jobs back to the United States like no one else can,” he said at the end of the recent debate in Detroit.

All the while, he’s blasted companies that manufacture overseas. Early in his campaign, Trump even pledged he’d stop eating Oreo cookies when it was announced some production would be moved to Mexico.

At Saks Off Fifth recently, an Ivanka Trump white polyester and spandex blouse made in Indonesia was marked down to $34.99, from $69. A few racks over, her black and white jacket came from Vietnam, while several blocks away, at Macy’s, her leather bootee manufactured in China sold for more than $100.

At the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, a $35 blue cotton cap embroidered with “Trump National Golf Club” was made in Bangladesh. A Trump Tower hoodie from Pakistan set tourists back $50.

The Obama administration is close to announcing a series of measures to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 presidential election, including economic sanctions and diplomatic censure, according to U.S. officials.

The administration is finalizing the details, which also are expected to include covert action that will probably involve cyber-operations, the officials said. An announcement on the public elements of the response could come as early as this week.