192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 10:48 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Equally classy. Although at least he waited for a couple of years.


You mean 9-10 months?

Quote:
Then Sen. Barack Obama pledged in January 2006 he would not run for president in 2008. By October of that year he was walking back his promise and ultimately won the White House.


But who cares? Why bother posting this meaningless bull?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:01 am
Quote:
Poll By Leftist Outlets Show Major Shift In Border Wall Support

Quote:
At the same time last year, the poll claimed that only 34 percent of voters supported a wall, but now, support President Trump’s wall has soared to 42 percent overall.

Most notably, swing voters are switching the support, as a means to control illegal invasion.

“Last year, less than 30 percent of swing voters said they supported the wall. Today, their support has soared to 40 percent, an 11 percent increase in support year-to-year.”

“Likewise, now 67 to 87 percent of Republican voters and conservatives support building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.”

And, even more interesting, democrats haven’t increased their opposition by even one percent. So basically, the same old haters want open migration, while people with the ability to think logically are changing their minds—which many argue is something democrats fear more than anything.

“Among midwest voters, college educated voters, men, and white Americans, the border wall has jumped in popularity since last year.

“For midwest voters, the poll claimed only 35 percent supported the wall last year. Today, midwest support for the wall is up to nearly 50 percent, a 14 percent increase.


Sounds a little bit like the wave Democrats talked about, doesn't it?

https://conservativedailypost.com/poll-by-leftist-outlets-show-major-shift-in-border-wall-support/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:02 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

So people who've never had a public service job are exempt from any ethical considerations?
Quote:
In the past 40 years, every other president has either sold his businesses or put them into a blind trust, in which an independent trustee is named to manage the businesses and the president is barred access. That includes Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Carter even sold his family’s peanut farm to avoid raising ethical questions.

wp


No, "people who've never had a public service job are exempt from any ethical considerations". That's a lazy statement and you know it.

On the other hand, public service does not require the end of private life either.

Carter - Pretty much a lifetime government worker, Navy>state Senate> Governor>President (Peanut farm was inherited)
Reagan - Army>Actor (FBI Informant)>Governor>Greatest Human Alive (President)
H.W. Bush - Navy>CIA>Congressman>Ambassador>Head of Republican Party>Head of CIA>academic>Vice President>President
Clinton - Law school>Academic>Governor>President
W. Bush - Alcoholic>bad military career>Businessman>sold baseball team>Governor>"President" (For you Cheney fans I'll use quotes)
Obama - Lawyer>"Community Organizer">State Senator>US Senator>President
Trump - Businessman>President

The only one close is W. Bush who didn't really have any thing to divest when he entered politics. If you look, going all the way back to Washington, every other President had the government as an employer before becoming President. Trump is the first President we have had that did not come into office on the public teat. When he is done, he will go back to his life as a businessman.
\Becoming President does not mean the end of a private career outside politics.

Also, there was this...
Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause
Quote:
A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a pair of lawsuits claiming that President Donald Trump’s failure to divest himself of his real estate empire and other business holdings violated the Constitution’s provision banning receipt of foreign “emoluments” while in public office.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:03 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
'I will serve my six-year term in the Senate': Kirsten Gillibrand vows she WON'T challenge Trump in 2020 if she wins reelection this year

classy


As a NYer, I have also noted that. Too bad we can't run her out of town.
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:17 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

okay...
Quote:
Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.

I hope you're pleasantly surprised!

I don't know why the fact that Trump never had a public service job is so important. It doesn't confer him with some sort of exclusive right to make money off of his being elected to high office.
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:18 am
@McGentrix,
And in Obama's case, there was quite a big groundswell of people asking him to run. Who the hell was clamoring for Gillibrand to get in the race?
maporsche
 
  4  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:23 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Who the hell was clamoring for Gillibrand to get in the race?


Does that matter?

What's your goal here?
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:29 am
@maporsche,
This is going to be the most interesting primary season we have had in some time. The DNC is going to eat themselves and expose who they really are.
The attacks against Tulsi Gabbard have already begun.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-explained
maporsche
 
  2  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:33 am
@Baldimo,
Yeah, no doubt about that. Interesting time we live in.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:34 am
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:39 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
What's your goal here?

Relax. I just think that sort of stuff is sleazy. I know it's done all the time. One of my senators promised to only serve one term — she's currently in her fourth and has stated that she'll be running again in '20. The voters have never cared about this kind of thing but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be brought to people's attention.
maporsche
 
  3  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 11:44 am
@hightor,
If she can win the primary and beat Trump I'd rather have her in Washington DC than in New York. If she doesn't win, she finishes her term.

But sure, let's just knock HER down for stupid reasons, despite other people doing all the time.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 12:34 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

And in Obama's case, there was quite a big groundswell of people asking him to run. Who the hell was clamoring for Gillibrand to get in the race?


No one that I know of. I mean would be great to be rid of her, obviously she knows how to lie pretty well. She's been kind of a wall flower in NYS with Schumer around.

I agree about Obama. I was on the Obama train when i first saw him on Letterman awhile back. Not so much once he started running and learned his platform.

Gillenbrand is a chameleon. She will reflect whatever you shine on her. Was once a bluedog democrat with NRA cred... that changed quick.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 12:36 pm
Quote:
US soldiers have been killed in an apparent suicide bombing in northern Syria claimed by the Islamic State (IS) group, the US military says.

IS said a militant had detonated an explosive vest next to a US patrol in the Kurdish-held town of Manbij.

Three US soldiers, two local security officers and 13 civilians died, a Kurdish news agency reports.

US forces are in Manbij to back Kurdish and Arab fighters who have driven IS out of almost all of eastern Syria.

Wednesday's attack took place at a restaurant near Manbij's main market.

The US troops were at the restaurant to meet members of the Manbij Military Council, a witness told Reuters news agency.

CCTV footage from a nearby shop shows a large fireball engulfing several people standing on the street outside.

The US soldiers were subsequently evacuated by a helicopter that landed on a playground, the Syrian Kurdish Hawar News Agency reports.

It cited the head of Manbij's health committee as saying that 18 people had been killed, including three of the soldiers, and that another 18 had been wounded.

Later, a spokesperson for the US-led multinational coalition against IS tweeted: "U.S. service members were killed during an explosion while conducting a routine patrol in Syria today. We are still gathering information and will share additional details at a later time."

Reuters cites a US official as saying four soldiers died and three were wounded.

Last month, President Donald Trump announced that the US would begin pulling out all its 2,000 troops from Syria because IS had been "defeated".

Opponents of the withdrawal stressed that although IS now controlled only 1% of the territory they overran five years ago, the group had not disappeared entirely.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has previously criticised Mr Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria, said on Wednesday that the move could encourage IS attacks and "set in motion enthusiasm by the enemy we're fighting".

Separately, US Vice-President Mike Pence defended Mr Trump, declaring the "caliphate has crumbled and [IS] has been defeated".

A recent US report said there were still as many as 14,000 IS militants in Syria and even more in neighbouring Iraq - and that they were expected to shift to guerrilla tactics in an attempt to rebuild their network.

Syrian Kurds also fear that Manbij and other towns they control near the border with Turkey might come under attack by the Turkish military, which wants to clear them of the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) militia.

The Turkish government considers the YPG an extension of the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has fought for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey for three decades. However, it denies any direct organisational links to the group.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46892118
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 12:39 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

I don't know why the fact that Trump never had a public service job is so important. It doesn't confer him with some sort of exclusive right to make money off of his being elected to high office.

It's because he is a unique case. Coming from the public sectore, most politicians have had time to divest themselves of the trappings of the private sector. Becoming President should not require a citizen to give up all their worldly goods to hold the office.
Trump's employees benefit FAR more than Trump does from any kind of stay at his properties. Let's not deprive them of their wages because a successful private person decides to try to serve the public.
hightor
 
  2  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 01:13 pm
@McGentrix,
I seem to remember hearing about some scheme whereby foreign money flowing into his hotel in D.C. was being re-directed to the U.S. Treasury — but in the research I did for this discussion I didn't find any references to it and I don't know if it's actually being done.
Quote:
Coming from the public sectore, most politicians have had time to divest themselves of the trappings of the private sector.

Okay, I get what you're saying. And you're right about his being a unique case.
Quote:
Becoming President should not require a citizen to give up all their worldly goods to hold the office.

It's not a matter of being forced to give up all their wealth though, it's just trying to ensure that there aren't conflicts of interest. Say there was a hurricane with destructive flooding someplace and Trump had a hotel or golf course in the area. It would be better off for him — and for the office — if it didn't look like F.E.M.A. was making a special effort to get his properties up and running. Or maybe the Republican governors decide to meet in some city where there's a Trump hotel — it would look bad if people thought Trump was making money off of it. That sort of thing. It's tricky and I don't like the way the GOP has circled the wagons and either discounts any possible conflict of interest or tries to muzzle those whose job is to raise those sorts of concerns.






0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 01:18 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
But sure, let's just knock HER down for stupid reasons, despite other people doing all the time.

I'm not interested in knocking HER down. It's simply a common habit— the winking denial — among people seeking political office which I don't find particularly appealing.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 01:42 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Gillenbrand is a chameleon. She will reflect whatever you shine on her.


Like Trump then?
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 02:30 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Gillibrand is a chameleon. She will reflect whatever you shine on her.


Like Trump then?

Oh, I thought we were talking about Gillibrand. Is that a possible thing that we can talk about a single thing without also talking about every other thing?
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Wed 16 Jan, 2019 02:36 pm
@McGentrix,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 10:43:37