silentbob1272

The Trump Presidency

70,908 posts in this topic

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 ****.

BernieBernstein 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.

BernieBernstein 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.

AF89 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".  

Carter, mdrake34 and AF89 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
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.  

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

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
Just now, marla_mulder said:

No idea...maybe because the focus is more on the tax returns themselves instead of the financial information already disclosed.

I disagree with your assertion.  If the media could find out whether Trump has impermissible conflicts of interests without having to resort to obtaining his tax returns, they would have run wild with those stories already.  You know that.  They're not sitting on a potential gold mine of a story because they just really want to be nosy and snoop through his tax returns for ***** and giggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing that the MSM can push out all these fantastic conspiracy's about Trump all day, everyday but then when Trump suggests its Fake or that he's been hacked at his residence(which according to the NYT's he was) then he's the lunatic. 

The left is eating their own and although I was not a Trump supporter at 1st, and I don't like his tweet fest or his attacking personality, I will say, he is getting a lot done, even with the Democrats slow walking his admin and his choices through. Trump is exactly what america needs to get back on the right track 

Share this post


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

Did you not see the **** show of Maddow's parading around 2 pages of tax returns from 2005 that provided absolutely NOTHING...but she acted as if it were a gold mine?

Maybe there's nothing all that interesting in there...but as long as he doesn't provide his tax returns, they pretend something nefarious is being "hidden."

You realize a 1040 is not a complete tax return, right?

BernieBernstein and Statick like this

Share this post


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

You realize a 1040 is not a complete tax return, right?

Trump knew that when he secretly released them to the show. lol

WOR and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


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

How is this comment even relevant to what I said?

For the record, I file my own taxes and have a degree in Accounting and had to take specialized tax accounting classes. But no, I know nothing about tax returns.

Because all that Maddow had was a two page 2005 1040. 

AF89 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's budget shows another promise he isn't going to keep: Mexico won't be paying for his wall but rather the American people. Specifically people who benefit from CDB grants, which includes programs that provide housing assistance and meals for the elderly who otherwise could not afford either.

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Not the wisest business move, but I still laughed. Speaking of disgusting though, have they never tried their own food?

 

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