silentbob1272

The Trump Presidency

14,330 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, erWOR 404 Player Not Found said:

So Marla has to go through more COI scrutiny than the president? 

Awesome. 

No not at all. I just don't see why Congress and the rest of America shouldn't be allowed to see his business ties. He said his tax return was under audit which we found out was a lie. Then he said he'd release them if he won the presidency ehich turned out to be another lie. I just don't favor liars esp when the liar is mt President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, defcon4 said:

You just described Donald Trump.

How do you point fingers and make accusations, when Donald Trump can't tell the truth about anything?

He's the same Buffoon he was in the 80's..90's..and now. 

That's what happens when a person is all up in their feelings about a candidate they voted for, even one as crappy and luny as Trump.

They can't see the forest for the tears.

defcon4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, marla_mulder said:

Really?  Because I was curious and went to the ethics website last night to see who must file those OGE financial disclosures...Presidential candidates are required to do so.

There is a limited financial disclosure form that has to be filled out by candidates, but it doesn't provide the type of business interests that we're talking about.  For example, how much (if any) debt does Trump owe to Russian banks and oligarchs associated with Putin?  How would lowering sanctions on Russia help/hurt those banks and/or Trump's businesses with these people (if at all)?  Those are just questions related to Russia.  Trump "owns" a hotel in D.C. that rents to several government offices.  What is Trump's role in setting those rents, specifically?  Are government contracts about renting office spaces directed to this hotel with the goal of benefiting Trump, and how much would be benefit from government agencies renting these office spaces?

Again, the disclosure forms that you're talking about wouldn't answer those questions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

There is a limited financial disclosure form that has to be filled out by candidates, but it doesn't provide the type of business interests that we're talking about.  For example, how much (if any) debt does Trump owe to Russian banks and oligarchs associated with Putin?  How would lowering sanctions on Russia help/hurt those banks and/or Trump's businesses with these people (if at all)?  Those are just questions related to Russia.  Trump "owns" a hotel in D.C. that rents to several government offices.  What is Trump's role in setting those rents, specifically?  Are government contracts about renting office spaces directed to this hotel with the goal of benefiting Trump, and how much would be benefit from government agencies renting these office spaces?

Again, the disclosure forms that you're talking about wouldn't answer those questions.  

Look up Donald Trump OGE 278...includes same info that I said I had to disclose.

Provides plenty of info...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, marla_mulder said:

Look up Donald Trump OGE 278...includes same info that I said I had to disclose.

Provides plenty of info...

Can we answer the questions that I asked with the OGE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The media is a bunch of liars, fake news, enemy of the people 

*Let me site them as my source for this one*

The amount of stupidity it takes to go from point a to point b here is mind blowing. 

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Can we answer the questions that I asked with the OGE?

Where is the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, erWOR 404 Player Not Found said:

 

The media is a bunch of liars, fake news, enemy of the people 

*Let me site them as my source for this one*

The amount of stupidity it takes to go from point a to point b here is mind blowing. 

Well he mentions news articles about it. He also says he other sources which he does not name specifically. Just because they are fake news does not mean that there is not some truth in their reporting.

Edited by Sobeit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sobeit said:

Well he mentions news articles about it. He also says he other sources which he does not name specifically. 

And after everything that's happened, you still trust Trump's word on this.  It's pretty obvious by now that Trump just made this up after hearing a Breitbart report about Mark Levin's rantings.  There's no factual basis for the accusation...he would have provided it by now if there was.  All he has is "well these media outlets reported this thing that doesn't support my accusation and I've got secret evidence that I won't tell anyone about, but wait over the next two weeks for the thing that I won't tell you about that I've known for 2-3 weeks already."

Weak ****.

holymoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Trump is going after Snoop Dogg? I don't agree with what Snoop did, but c'mon.

This crazy *** has nothing else better to do with his time? :lol:

Still, funny how he didn't respond to Madonna saying she would blow up the White House, but he'll take umbrage with Snoop? Hmmm.

holymoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get to into the weeds of the Con Law, but even if the Supreme Court accepts the campaign/aide statements about the travel ban as intent to discriminate, they would apply the "strict scrutinty" standard (if I understand it correctly).  That requires the government to justify the regulation by showing:

Compelling government interest - this is a slam-dunk case for the administration...preventing terrorists from entering the country is absolutely a compelling interest.

Narrowly tailored to accomplish the goal - this is where the first EO would have fallen on its face, but where I think the administration has a much stronger argument now.  The EO is tailored only to apply to countries with suspect vetting processes in the past and it only affects new visas, not current ones.  Saying that other countries like Saudi Arabia weren't included is an argument about why it's a dumb policy, but the Court standard would view that as evidence that it was narrowly targeted at specific countries for a legitimate reason (suspect vetting).  

This was my point in the other thread...at some point those campaign statements start to carry less weight as the administration revises the ban to address the court's criticisms about discrimination.  The intent doesn't matter if the law itself can survive strict scrutiny and certainly can survive a lower level of scrutiny if the SCOTUS applies that.  I think the administration has a strong case to make that it's narrowly tailored (and I think the compelling interest portion has always been there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Well he mentions news articles about it. He also says he other sources which he does not name specifically. Just because they are fake news does not mean that there is not some truth in their reporting.

230114_908223010.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

And after everything that's happened, you still trust Trump's word on this.  It's pretty obvious by now that Trump just made this up after hearing a Breitbart report about Mark Levin's rantings.  There's no factual basis for the accusation...he would have provided it by now if there was.  All he has is "well these media outlets reported this thing that doesn't support my accusation and I've got secret evidence that I won't tell anyone about, but wait over the next two weeks for the thing that I won't tell you about that I've known for 2-3 weeks already."

Weak ****.

Well I certainly do not trust the media or the left. Come on they their their emotions and feelings supersede law. No factual basis? So now you agree the NYTimes is fake news?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

230114_908223010.png

I know nuisance escapes you but the best liars and manipulators hide their deception with bits of the truth. After all that is what all of it is about with the media. It is about manipulating people and shaping public opinion.

silentbob1272 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sobeit said:

I know nuisance escapes you but the best liars and manipulators hide their deception with bits of the truth. After all that is what all of it is about with the media. It is about manipulating people and shaping public opinion.

Nuance*. You are a nuisance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Well I certainly do not trust the media or the left. Come on they their their emotions and feelings supersede law. No factual basis? So now you agree the NYTimes is fake news?

Nothing in the New York Times reporting supports Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower.  

"I don't trust the media or the left...LOOK AT THIS NYTIMES ARTICLE!"

You're twisting yourself into laughable knots trying to sustain an argument that is not rooted in fact and is internally inconsistent.

atl falcon 89 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

I know nuisance escapes you but the best liars and manipulators hide their deception with bits of the truth. After all that is what all of it is about with the media. It is about manipulating people and shaping public opinion.

:lol:

The projection here is hilariously transparent.  Trump has spread one false conspiracy theory after another.  He is exactly what you describe and attribute to "the media".  

mdrake34, atl falcon 89 and Carter like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Well I certainly do not trust the media or the left. Come on they their their emotions and feelings supersede law. No factual basis? So now you agree the NYTimes is fake news?

Left, Right, it doesn't matter at this stage of the nation.

Either way for too long will only take you in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Can we answer the questions that I asked with the OGE?

I'm sorry, but I just think there is plenty of information available in the disclosure to answer reasonable questions.

Public officials don't have to completely give up all privacy and open up all avenues if their lives for inspection to every single question someone may have...especially when those questions are for the sole purpose of fishing for negative information to spin. 

I just don't agree that tax information is necessary for the public to know. Financial disclosures provide enough information, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdrake34 said:

Trump isn't a non-profit organization. So Marla's example doesn't work. 

One thing that got completely lost in all of the nonsense under this administration are the very real concerns over Trump's potential business conflicts of interest. You can't just fire off FOIA's for that information. 

Has nothing to do with being a non-profit...

My example stands because he had to fill out the same form and info that I did..except his is public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, marla_mulder said:

I'm sorry, but I just think there is plenty of information available in the disclosure to answer reasonable questions.

Public officials don't have to completely give up all privacy and open up all avenues if their lives for inspection to every single question someone may have...especially when those questions are for the sole purpose of fishing for negative information to spin. 

I just don't agree that tax information is necessary for the public to know. Financial disclosures provide enough information, imo.

But we can't answer the important questions related to his conflicts of interest on policy.  

I understand your point and it's a legitimate one.  The fishing for negative info that you describe is very real and is a tradeoff we have to make...these things can be demagogued.  

I just happen to think that the possibility of conflicts of interest outweighs the loss of privacy that results from releasing tax returns.  I don't believe that the current dislosure forms can help the public recognize and consider the types of conflicts of interests that we're discussing.  It's a difference in perception and how we weigh privacy versus transparency.  

marla_mulder likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, marla_mulder said:

I'm sorry, but I just think there is plenty of information available in the disclosure to answer reasonable questions.

Then where is the information?  Why haven't news outlets who investigate and report on these very same matters don't already have the information? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

But we can't answer the important questions related to his conflicts of interest on policy.  

I understand your point and it's a legitimate one.  The fishing for negative info that you describe is very real and is a tradeoff we have to make...these things can be demagogued.  

I just happen to think that the possibility of conflicts of interest outweighs the loss of privacy that results from releasing tax returns.  I don't believe that the current dislosure forms can help the public recognize and consider the types of conflicts of interests that we're discussing.  It's a difference in perception and how we weigh privacy versus transparency.  

I disagree, but I appreciate your position....it's not unreasonable, just disagreement in how far down that road we have a need to go. :)

 

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, defcon4 said:

How come some of the best parts of Trump Care are just carry overs from Obama care? Pre exisiting coverage, extended coverage and so on.  Why not take a plan that has something to build on and fix the problems? Is it because they want to say that they wiped out and replaced Obama?

Call Obama care a Beta test. Health care is very complicated. Apparently this was a revelation to Donald Trump.

There are parts of Obamacare that will continue. But you get Govt out of the system and allow the private market to provide many alternatives. A few major idea's that have to be included is portability across state lines, TORT reform, individual health savings accounts, and the tax law on individual private plans and business plans. Why the heck can't I deduct the stupid $5k which is my deductable? 

For Instance - My families plan went from mid $200's per month, with $500 deductables per person, to high $800's per month and over $5k deductable per person. This happened in 2013-2014. For those trying to say healthcare costs were sky rocketing before Obamacare, that is a load of BS in comparison. Previous to Obamacare, our family plans monthly costs would go up, even down a time or 2 by a $100 or more, NEVER quadrupled the monthly and 10 times the deductables seen in Obamacare. 

BTW - we are also forced to pay for coverage we Don't need and frankly, we cannot afford the deductables we have.

Here's another issue with Obamacare - A recent doctor visit to a cardiologist, the Doc highly recommended I get a echo cardiogram based on some issue's I was having. He said my insurance would pay for it as he recommended. I got a bill for $779 after my insurance declined to pay it. They stated, it was an unnecessary expense. SAYS WHO? Thats pure BS. The doctor himself said I needed it.

So, not only do we pay $800 some odd dollars per month, we pay a huge deductable on top of that then get refused the services we need. 

Obamacare was sold as a lie, a power grab by the democrats and its all tanking as it was built to do. 

The bottom line is we need a few changes in the market place as well. Drug companies have to be held in check. The costs and frequency for doctors to subscribe Meds over moving your arse on a daily basis is a huge reason we have a nation hooked on prescription drugs and an obesity rate the highest in the world. When a doctor will honestly tell a patient, NO, you cannot have a new hip or knee until you've lost 500 lbs and rehabbed and gotten your body in shape, then nothing will make sense, price or treatment wise.

Edited by dirtyhairy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now