Trump administration lets his bankers off the hook

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?

Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother er.
Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.

Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. What word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please put in bold (you know, the "b" button) the word that your stupid ass is having problems with. I can only guess it is that some of these words are too long. I will try not to use more than a syllable (you know the sound thingie in words) or two in my answer.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

[RandomGuy]

Conflicts of interest OK now.

But, but Clinton Foundation!!! That is really, really important... until Trump does something an order of magnitude worse. You will notice that the bootlickers haven't been talking about it recently. I doubt that is a coincidence.

[Spurtacular]

Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. Was there a particular word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please highlight the word that is unfamiliar to your stupid ass, and preventing you from answering the question.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

Are the waivers flat-out wrong? Yes or no. Simple question.

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?

Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother er.
Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.

Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. What word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please put in bold (you know, the "b" button) the word that your stupid ass is having problems with. I can only guess it is that some of these words are too long. I will try not to use more than a syllable (you know the sound thingie in words) or two in my answer.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

Are the waivers flat-out wrong? Yes or no. Simple question.

I'm not answering your ing question until you answer mine, stupid mother er.
I asked first, and you are attempting to chicken- dodge for all you are worth.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

[Spurtacular]

I'm not answering your ing question until you answer mine, stupid mother er.
I asked first, and you are attempting to chicken- dodge for all you are worth.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

I have not verified your claim that Trump owes such banks hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, are the waivers wrong regardless of who is granting them? Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

Let me walk your stupid ass through Conflict of Interest 101.
Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

So, your argument is that the waivers aren't straight-up wrong?

Not really an answer to my question, stupid mother er.
Let me know if your dumb ass needs any of those short words explained.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

You cannot even say if the waivers are wrong? I'll take that as a no and that your only point is that Trump has a conflict of interest. Well, I'm sure he's not the first president nor the last to have a conflict of interest if this is all we're talking about.

Ok, it looks like you do need some simple words explained. What word that was giving you problems? I can't know what word you don't understand if you can't tell me what it is.

Please put in bold (you know, the "b" button) the word that your stupid ass is having problems with. I can only guess it is that some of these words are too long. I will try not to use more than a syllable (you know the sound thingie in words) or two in my answer.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

Are the waivers flat-out wrong? Yes or no. Simple question.

I'm not answering your ing question until you answer mine, stupid mother er.
I asked first, and you are attempting to chicken- dodge for all you are worth.

Did Obama personally owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of those banks?

I have not verified your claim that Trump owes such banks hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, are the waivers wrong regardless of who is granting them? Yes or no.

Ok, I seem to have broken the bot. You have failed the Turing test.

[RandomGuy]

The answer to my question, for a real human is:

"No, President Obama did not owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of the banks his administration was in charge of regulating".

President Obama did not have any conflict of interest involving personal indebtedness over a bank he owed a vast amount of money to.

[Spurtacular]

Ok, I seem to have broken the bot. You have failed the Turing test.

Seems your condemnation is conditional on not analyzing whether the waivers are good or bad in the first place. I've asked you multiple times to put forth a position, and you've ran / spazzed.

[RandomGuy]

With conflicts of interest, any decision has to be looked at through the lens of self-dealing.

Who benefits?

The banks Trump owe money to got multiple-year waivers of penalties for breaking the law. Why did they really get those waivers?

[Pavlov]

I have not verified your claim that Trump owes such banks hundreds of millions of dollars.

How long is that going to take you?

[Spurtacular]

The answer to my question, for a real human is:

"No, President Obama did not owe hundreds of millions of dollars to any of the banks his administration was in charge of regulating".

President Obama did not have any conflict of interest involving personal indebtedness over a bank he owed a vast amount of money to.

Almost assuredly untrue. No doubt he has many of elite donors / benefactors with connections to the bank. By extension, he has a conflict of interest.

[RandomGuy]

Seems your condemnation is conditional on not analyzing whether the waivers are good or bad in the first place. I've asked you multiple times to put forth a position, and you've ran / spazzed.

No, you stupid mother er, you used your question to dodge mine. I am not letting your lying ass get away with it, you don't get to "boo hoo" over the fact I didn't let you get away with being dishonest.

right off, sophist.

[Trill Clinton]

[Spurtacular]

No, you stupid mother er, you used your question to dodge mine. I am not letting your lying ass get away with it, you don't get to "boo hoo" over the fact I didn't let you get away with being dishonest.

right off, sophist.

meltdown.

Here, I'll save us both a canned response:

[Smiley][Derision]

[RandomGuy]

Almost assuredly untrue. No doubt he has many of elite donors / benefactors with connections to the bank. By extension, he has a conflict of interest.

I have not verified that Obama has many elite donors/benefactors with connections to "the bank".

[RandomGuy]

meltdown.

Here, I'll save us both a canned response:

Thanks, bot.

[Spurtacular]

I have not verified that Obama has many elite donors/benefactors with connections to "the bank".

And yet you want to proclaim he had no conflict of interest. And now you're mad that you got caught slurping the kool aid.

[RandomGuy]

And yet you want to proclaim he had no conflict of interest. And now you're mad that you got caught slurping the kool aid.

(facepalm)

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

[Blake]

How long is that going to take you?

Lol

[Pavlov]

Lol

Might take him days tbh.

[Spurtacular]

(facepalm)

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

You mean facetious, actually. And it doesn't erase the reality that you are carrying Obama's water.

[RandomGuy]

Might take him days tbh.

Gleichschaltung

Read up on that word. Perhaps I worry overmuch, but I see attempts at it here.

[RandomGuy]

You mean facetious, actually. And it doesn't erase the reality that you are carrying Obama's water.

Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?

[Spurtacular]

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?

You do realize I've never said no conflict of interest doesn't exist? These are simple things you'd catch if you weren't too busy crying.

So, are the waivers good or bad? This question seems to have greatly scared you.

[RandomGuy]

You do realize I've never said no conflict of interest doesn't exist? These are simple things you'd catch if you weren't too busy crying.

So, are the waivers good or bad? This question seems to have greatly scared you.

Not, what I asked, stupid mother er.

Another change in topic, without addressing anything.

Unlike your dishonest ass, I don't mind answering your questions. I refuse to do so when you are being a dishonest , which means I will ignore them especially when you are using them to be dishonest or change the subject.

The waivers are neither good nor bad, but should be short, because having them in place for long periods of time diminishes the penalty due to the time value of money. Long periods for waivers are a way of reducing penalties without appearing to do so.

Now answer my question.

In this case, you moved on from the topic, Trump's conflict of interest, without ever really addressing it, other than to say "it isn't really a problem".

If Trumps conflict of interest really isn't a problem then the Clinton Foundation isn't a problem either, by the same logic.

You don't find the Clinton Foundation to be a problem?