I didn't say he was. I can say "a" if it would help you get to where you could give a straight answer.
2nd time:
I merely asked if you thought that it was ok of a sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?
Don the Con is a lot better than Trash. You should keep it up.
I didn't say he was. I can say "a" if it would help you get to where you could give a straight answer.
2nd time:
I merely asked if you thought that it was ok of a sitting president should be working personal deals to develop real estate in India?
Ad hominem
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
I'm sure all this flawed reasoning passes for valid in your head, but to anybody with even weak critical thinking skills, it is way less than convincing.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-21-2016 at 08:48 AM.
http://www.marke ch.com/story/eli...ers-2016-11-15They include, among many others, a former Goldman Sachs executive who is rumored to be a Treasury Secretary pick; a paid consultant for Verizon who is making key decisions on your administration's Federal Communication Commission; a 'top lobbyist' whose firm lobbied on behalf of issues related to the Trans-Pacific Partnership who is shaping your Labor Department; and a climate-change-denying, oil industry-paid think tank fellow who is leading your environmental team's transition."
http://www.marke ch.com/story/eli...ers-2016-11-15Malpass, a former Bear Stearns chief economist, is working on shaping Trump’s Treasury Department, which Mnuchin is a leading candidate to lead. Atkins, a former Securities and Exchange Commission commissioner during the George W. Bush administration, is working to fill the ranks of financial regulatory agencies in the Trump administration.
I am guessing you are more of a Bear Stearns kinda guy...?
or
I am guessing you are more a S Oil kinda guy?
Does Trumps potential conflicts of interest bother you? Clinton's bothered me.
The thing we are both faced with is what to do about it.
Clinton's "conflicts" were mostly fabricated, investigated way past death (just like Benghazi) (Chaffetz has vowed to continue "investigating" Clinton), and relentlessly hyped and lied about by Repug/rigthwing-hate-media for years.
Don The Con's history of fraud, theft, financial failures, nepotism are in court records.
False equivalence.
This isn’t just a photo of Ivanka Trump. It’s a middle finger to democracy.
Donald Trump is leveraging his new position as president-elect to empower his business empire — and he’s doing it publicly.
https://thinkprogress.org/this-isnt-...c0c#.3or0b8vqm
================
The merger of the Trump administration and the Trump Organization took 6 days
https://thinkprogress.org/the-merger...8a0#.uwv5jewyu
The Trumps hold a 60-year lease from the GSA for the Old Post Office. President-elect Trump will appoint a new GSA head.
Similarly, he will make appointments to the NLRB, which has had a contentious relationship with Trump's Nevada hotels.
The conflicts are fairly obvious, Trump would do well to take them more seriously.
Will Dems investigate Don The Con as relentlessly as the Repugs have gone after the Clintons for 25 years?
There's no law that forces a Pres to divest or solve conflicts of interest.
There is a law against nepotism, but Trash has already figured out how get around it while "employing" his SIL
It's simply a show of good-faith, of which Don The Con possesses none.
Great photo. I love how it triggers liberals.
Ivanka perfectly positioned to pull a Sharon Stone to throw them off their game.
My first thought is, "Damn, White House going to be slumming."
The conflicts of interest possibilities are obvious, and they were before the election. At least I can sleep knowing the press will actually, gleefully, hold this president accountable for those, rather than look the other way.
and apparently, board conservatives will gleefully look the other way, just like HRC's true believers did during the campaign.
The election is over, the talking is done
Your party lost, my party won
So let us be friends, let arguments pass
I’ll hug my elephant, you kiss your ass!
Until I see something like this linked to Trump, you've no room
That is the suck thing. Hillary would have had similar baggage, that would have been unwound by simply shutting down the foundation. Trumps businesses won't be quite so easy to wind down.
... and that is....?
I agree. If you had to work so hard to show the conflicts of interest, your case isn't nearly as strong as you think it is.
This stuff... is easy to outline.
emolument... fun word, going to make a comeback this coming year.
You are using words involved in critical thinking, something quite alien to many here. "False equivalence" is how it works. "Trump is bad, but Clinton is just as bad". Not quite.
There is a big reason that we never saw the tax returns. It keeps the plebs from knowing how much the emperor would be skimming.The Mumbai Shuffle
The Trump Organization is not like the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the charitable enterprise that has been the subject of intense scrutiny about possible conflicts for the Democratic presidential nominee. There are allegations that Hillary Clinton bestowed benefits on contributors to the foundation in some sort of “pay to play” scandal when she was secretary of state, but that makes no sense because there was no “pay.” Money contributed to the foundation was publicly disclosed and went to charitable efforts, such as fighting neglected tropical diseases that infect as many as a billion people. The financials audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global independent accounting company, and the foundation’s tax filings show that about 90 percent of the money it raised went to its charitable programs. (Trump surrogates have falsely claimed that it was only 10 percent and that the rest was used as a Clinton “slush fund.”)
No member of the Clinton family received any cash from the foundation, nor did it finance any political campaigns. In fact, like the Clintons, almost the entire board of directors works for free.
On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year.
Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities. None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners. (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign en ies in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.) Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas en ies, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.
Integrity and principles still matter regardless of who won.
I'm cool with all the touchdown dances, but some point the conversation starts again -- there's way more to politics than ing the football after election day.
seems the win caught Trump by surprise. Even if it didn't, he seems unprepared -- didn't think things through all the way.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...-obama-cabinet
or just google it if you don't like the source
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)