Reply With Quote
Corruption Overload As Trump Makes Money Off President-Elect’s New Year’s Eve Party
$500/person
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/...iticus+USA+%29
grifting bag of
Was there an open bar?
Crooked Hillary
"To the victor belongs the spoils" - Donald Trump
Corruption Overload As Trump Makes Money Off President-Elect’s New Year’s Eve Party
$500/person
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/...iticus+USA+%29
grifting bag of
Was there an open bar?
Crooked Hillary
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-04-2017 at 12:30 PM.
Presidenting for profit: Trump's policies give a big boost to Trump's bottom line
Donald Trump stands to personally profit from the legislative agenda he is expected to push in his first 100 days, raising questions about whether he can separate his financial interest from his public office without totally cutting ties from his business empire.
Trump knows exactly what actions he can take as president to fatten his own wallet.
The top items on the president-elect’s policy checklist — from rewriting the tax code to scrapping Wall Street regulations to repealing Obamacare — have for years been Republican orthodoxy.
But Trump could see a direct benefit to muscling through broad tax cuts and eliminating regulations:
billions of dollars in new savings for him and his family and fresh revenue for his business portfolio,
according to a POLITICO analysis of Trump’s public statements and financial disclosures and interviews with tax experts.
All of which makes the money Trump “spent” on the campaign—money which could have come to Trump from anywhere, since he’s not obligated to show either his taxes or further financial statements—a very cheap investment when compared to the returns.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/0...28Daily+Kos%29
Is it because you hate Trump that you ignore basically every President abusing their powers for their own self-gains and the interests of their friends and benefactors prior to him?
You're about to see something you've never seen before. We've never seen abuse on this scale (not since the 1800's at least) as we're about to witness.
here's another Repug corrupton scandal, 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_scandal
Just wanted to keep you up to date, and it seemed to be the best way to do it.
Anything other than self-believed speculation and a massive blanket statement that totally ignores the corruption and abuses of powers of the last sixteen years to substantiate such an absurd claim? ANYTHING aside from "I believe this and I won't tell you why..." statements, please. Genuinely interested, not being rude or ish.
Now there is an important conversation to have. You seem a decent intelligent person, so, with your permission, I would like to try for something unusual here. A reasonable, respectful conversation.
Up until a certain point in time, a fetus has about as much life expectancy as an appendix or a hand, when removed from a woman's body, no matter how much hideously expensive medical heroics are applied.
This is simple biology, that I am sure you understand, and we both can agree on as fact.
In this way, that physical group of cells is part of the womans body.
What moral basis do we have for telling a woman what they can do with their body? Use whatever reasoning/justification you want. I merely am trying to understand your viewpoint.
Secondly, "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification. There is really no such thing as "abortion" after a certain time. There is just birth or death.
Medical procedures that late a pregnancy are for real, life threatening things, and are not done lightly. What moral basis would be applied to limit doctors ability to do what amounts to a C-section? Babies are not "killed" at that point. They either live, or are still born.
Again, I am mostly trying to understand the reasoning here.
" "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification"
not a simplification, it's a LIE from the pro-birth mob, which RMT and similar ilk swallow in total faith.
I bet RMT also believes CarFi's "saw alive baby being dismembered".
I think it demonstrates a very important thing to be careful of in talking about abortion.
The people who are against it are really really against it, and see it as a monstrous evil. People justify all sorts of things with faith, and what is a little lying in the face of such evil?
I have to step back and be very, very skeptical of any arguments from activists and people writing op-eds online, as I have found no small amount of distortions, and omissions of fact.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...erests/508382/Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s assurance that he has stopped pursuing deals since the election, his namesake organization is currently moving forward with a pair of projects in Indonesia. According to The New York Times, the two properties that will bear the Trump name, one overlooking a Hindu temple in Bali and the other abutting a theme park in West Java, presented ethical problems even before the election.
To begin with, through his Indonesian partner on the projects, the billionaire media mogul Hary Tanoesoedibjo (known in Indonesia as Hary Tanoe), Trump has forged relationships with several top Indonesian politicians. One such leader is Setya Novanto, the speaker of the country’s House of Representatives who temporarily lost his post for trying to extort $4 billion from the American mining company Freeport-McMoRan (a company which counts Carl Icahn, who will be serving as a special adviser in Trump’s administration, among its largest shareholders, and which has been frequently criticized by labor advocates and environmentalists). Trump had lunch with Novanto and several other Indonesian politicians during the campaign in September 2015 to discuss the Trump Organization’s planned expansion into Indonesia. At a post-luncheon press conference, Trump pulled Novanto in front of the cameras, calling him “an amazing man” and “one of the most powerful men” and asserting, “we will do great things for the United States.” (It is unclear exactly whom Trump meant when he used the word “we.”) Trump then asked Novanto to confirm that “they like me in Indonesia,” which Novanto did.
The newest one.
Trump plans presser for Jan. 11, may unveil ethics plan
I will not be holding my breath.Donald Trump’s is promising to hold a news conference on Jan. 11, and a top campaign advisor suggested the president-elect will use the presser to unveil an ethics plan to guard against potential conflicts of interest between his business empire and his incoming administration.
......
“I believe it was rescheduled for Jan. 11, originally, and if the lawyers and the compliance officers feel like we’re ready, then we’ll stick to that date. It’s really up to them,” Conway said Monday night on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360.” “But I know that I spoke to the president-elect today about [the] press conference and I know that’s the current plan. So that’s next week.”
I give it a good chance it is another bait and switch.
Using "body autonomy" as a defense should be fairly used for people who don't want to pay for insurance since they should have the right to do with their physical well-being too, it's their right to get sick or be in poor health (poor health is ok with the Left as supporting fat people and normalizing obesity doesn't seem to be an issue with them, even though they are enabling addiction and disease) because it's their body, right?
That is the jest of what you are saying. You can take the argument into the "well, everyone who doesn't have insurance raises costs for everyone" spectrum, that isn't a fair argument considering a huge contingency of women, specifically Liberals, have gone on record as saying they believe abortions and planned parenthood should be payed for by the taxpayers. That is absurdity at it's finest. They are asking for cooperation and collusion for people whom it obviously is immoral to.
Moreover, it is a lack of responsibility and denial of accountability trying to pawn off their abortions on taxpayers. It's simple cause and effect. If you don't wrap it up, pull out, use a vagina sponge or catch device, or don't tie your tubes or use any of the numerous contraception techniques and devices, you're failure to prevent the known effect of ing is 100% on you. You should pay for your own actions, don't think it's ok for the rest of society to cover your bad.
And I do understand that same rhetoric can be applied to people who refuse medical attention, but those who don't have insurance end up in massive debt they are personally responsible for and with the absurd costs of actual healthcare and the influx of new insured patients, you'll be hard pressed to find hospitals struggling anywhere in the states compared to asking for tax dollars to offset their irresponsible, personal behaviors. It's cause and effect being completely ignored and that is insulting to hard working, responsible adults. It's not even a moral issue there.
Now, this is weird to me. You tell him he is "simplifying" the definition of killing a baby minutes before birth, which Hillary said was cool with her. Yet, you trivialized the entire issue and denied the meaning of the word abortion and insinuate you either die or live and compare it to live-saving tactics. This makes no sense. Please defend this statement, because if you take a baby out of the womb seconds before delivery with the intention to stop it's existence, you are killing it. It's a fully functioning human being, no way around it. A few seconds more in the womb doesn't change that, but you are saying that women should have the right to kill their babies and no one should be upset because that kid was part of her body for 9 months and she opted out right before she was to assume her parental responsibilities. This is exactly what you are saying.Secondly, "people like Hillary who are for abortion right up until delivery date" is a simplification. There is really no such thing as "abortion" after a certain time. There is just birth or death.
Medical procedures that late a pregnancy are for real, life threatening things, and are not done lightly. What moral basis would be applied to limit doctors ability to do what amounts to a C-section? Babies are not "killed" at that point. They either live, or are still born.
With that, you should be against illegal aliens receiving any kind of benefits. They aren't American citizens. You should be against forced health insurance. You can't control anyone's bodies, and no one is of a position to tell people what they can or cant do with their bodies, so why are people forced to have insurance? That is full control of another's body and decision making.
So what is it? Is it ok for one and not the other? It's ok to deny words by their very definition to fit your ideas and positions? Or are you just tied to your partisan beliefs that you just don't see the contradictory positions you stated?
Looking for an honest insight on how someone can support "body autonomy" for one thing and then believe it doesn't account for anything on the other front based on partisan policy. Please explain.
First of all, what corruption are you referring to with regard to Obama? Massive false equivalency if you're trying to lump whatever corruption you're talking about in with happened during George W. Bush's administration. Obama's administration was pretty clean... almost about as clean as you can get and still be made up of human beings and not robots.
There are red flags everywhere with regard to Mr. Trump. Just look at his "charitable foundation"... he tried to get away with using his charity to make a political contribution to the person (Florida Attorney General) who would decide whether to go ahead with charges against him for the Trump University fraud case... and it worked, like a couple of days after she gets the contribution suddenly she announces they won't even investigate it. And look at what happened with the veteran fundraiser. He basically had to get shamed into actually giving the money from his foundation to Charity when reporters couldn't figure out where the money went and he was forced to give it all at the last moment. It goes on and on and on. The writing is on the wall... How can you not see it.
Really?First of all, what corruption are you referring to with regard to Obama? Massive false equivalency if you're trying to lump whatever corruption you're talking about in with happened during George W. Bush's administration.
Fast n Furious
Becoming the largest private dealer of arms in mankind history. Selling said weapons to Saudis who armed ISIS with them and to drug cartels? That isn't a scandal or corrupt? But when Repub Reagan did it, it was?
Chicago Housing Projects and illegal speculating to pocket >$40 million
$96 million personal spending on tax dollars. More than 10x their own net worth.
The IRS being used as his personal goon squad targeting conservative groups
Admitting he knew about Benghazi and spying on private citizens
Starting two new wars and using Iraq as an excuse to do so.
Deposed a leader who was doing better for his people than Barry did because of course he would. He is the exact same person as Bush and basically guilty of everything Bush did, except he is more guilty of divisiveness and driving home partisanship suckery.
It's only a "false equivalency" to you because you are selective in what you define as corruption because you are bound to this ridiculous notion of partisanship and that is exactly what you are doing- ignoring your party's crimes and still holding on to the past and hoping that lessens the disgusting truths of Barry's criminal organization. I won't deny anything Bush did but I also can't indict a man who hasn't done anything that his predecessors didn't, let alone not having committed a crime on the levels of BushnBarry.
Don't hand that kind of ridiculousness this way again.
You are aware of Obama's poverty pimping that turned into a bait and switch to help he and his real estate buds reap millions in illegal speculation profits while thousands of poor who were told they would get housing were left out in the gutters. That is sicker than everything you tagged Trump to. Your ignorance doesn't change what he has done or the fact he's a criminal and disgusting human being. Your piece of stinks more than mine, pal. Deal with it. Or just be ignorant so you can think you're still "right".There are red flags everywhere with regard to Mr. Trump. Just look at his "charitable foundation"... he tried to get away with using his charity to make a political contribution to the person (Florida Attorney General) who would decide whether to go ahead with charges against him for the Trump University fraud case... and it worked, like a couple of days after she gets the contribution suddenly she announces they won't even investigate it. And look at what happened with the veteran fundraiser. He basically had to get shamed into actually giving the money to Charity when reporters couldn't figure out where the money went and he was forced to give it all at the last moment. It goes on and on and on. The writing is on the wall... How can you not see it.
Try $3 TRILLION+ WASTED & 3 THOUSAND+ AMERICAN LIVES LOST for an Iraq War that we were lied into by the Bush Administration.
Your bull isn't even in the same league.
LMAO "Benghazi!"
Last edited by DMX7; 01-04-2017 at 04:59 PM.
Elizabeth Warren Drops The Hammer On Trump With Bill To Implement the Emoluments Clause
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a slew of Democrats are taking aim at Donald Trump with new legislation that would force him to release his tax returns and divest himself of potential financial conflicts of interest.
The legislation led the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 would require the president and vice president to comply with the Emoluments Clause of the Cons ution by requiring them to release their tax returns and divest themselves of any personal financial conflicts of interest.
It would also require cabinet appointees to recuse themselves if any potential presidential conflicts of interest came before their agencies.
Sen. Warren said,
“The American people deserve to know that the President of the United States is working to do what’s best for the country – not using his office to do what’s best for himself and his businesses.
The only way for President-elect Trump to truly eliminate conflicts-of-interest is to divest his financial interests by placing them in a blind trust.
This has been the standard for previous presidents, and our bill makes clear the continuing expectation that President-elect Trump do the same.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/...iticus+USA+%29
Any ideas on how Trash will tweet insults at Liz?
Progressive es kicking Trash in his tiny balls (existence unproven)
Politico Is Mistaken, It Would Be Fun and Easy for Donald Trump to Divest
The key to the process I outline in that piece is that Trump arrange to get independent teams of auditors to provide assessments of the property.
I suggested he go with the middle assessment provided by three teams of auditors.
This would limit the likelihood of a major error in the assessment.
Trump would then buy an insurance policy that would guarantee him the estimate from this middle audit.
The enterprises would then be turned over to an executor who would run and offload the businesses with the goal of maximizing the value.
When the businesses are sold off the proceeds would be placed in a blind trust.
If the ulative value from the sales exceeds the estimate, then the proceeds go to a charity of Trump's choosing, but not under his control.
If the proceeds from the sales are less than the value of the estimate he collects on the insurance policy.
This is a process that should be fair to Donald Trump and can be done quickly.
It eliminates his conflicts of interest as soon he buys the insurance policy.
Trump should have been going in this direction the day after the election, in which case he surely would have an insurance policy in force by now.
However, if he were to take steps to come clean now, he should still be able to end his conflicts in the first weeks of his presidency.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...d-trump-divest
She might as well wipe her ass with that bill because that's all it's good for.
Pure grandstanding
Repugs will block it, of course, proving YET AGAIN Repugs are totally corrupt, will do anything to enable their own corruption and that of their BigDonor.
Law Firm Overseeing Trump’s Conflict Of Interest Is Russia’s Law Firm Of The Year
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse: even the people dealing with Trump's conflict of interest have a conflict of interest.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/11/lawyer-handling-trumps-conflict-interest-part-russias-law-firm-year.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&ut m_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politicu s+USA+%29
^at least its not that borowitz crap
still unfunny "humor" from booboo
This is a false statement. Simple biology proves your analogy wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
