Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 17:39:05 GMT
In elex Congrats Call, Trump Asked Argentine Prez Macri to Deal w Permitting Issues Holding Up Building Project Completely disgusting. t.co/GgVaTvuUkW
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Nov 21, 2016 17:40:47 GMT
In elex Congrats Call, Trump Asked Argentine Prez Macri to Deal w Permitting Issues Holding Up Building Project Completely disgusting. t.co/GgVaTvuUkW
I would say I can't even believe this, but it is completely consistent with everything else he has done in the past week.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 17:41:09 GMT
In elex Congrats Call, Trump Asked Argentine Prez Macri to Deal w Permitting Issues Holding Up Building Project Completely disgusting. t.co/GgVaTvuUkWJesus. It's headache-inducing to try and keep up with his misdeeds. Save
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 21, 2016 17:49:03 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. Yeah, NO. Just no. Made-up right-wing talking points. Last time I saw you post, it was last summer and you were in despair over Trump. Have you changed your mind, or do you just hate Hillary even more than you hate Trump?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 21, 2016 18:03:27 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. No, there isn't evidence of major wrongdoing, no matter how many times you read that on your questionable sources. But let's forget about the Clintons, they're old news now. How do you feel about the President-elect and his very obvious conflicts of interest?
^^^
I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer to this question, because I doubt you'll ever get one. Apparently these issues are only 'bad' when the 'other side' does it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 18:11:01 GMT
I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer to this question, because I doubt you'll ever get one. No kidding! lynlam is one of the biggest dump and run posters in pea history. Engaging with her is futile unless you have the patience of a saint.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 21, 2016 18:20:24 GMT
hahaha!!!
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 21, 2016 18:36:43 GMT
the last paragraphs of the article about the Argentinian deal:
"Why aren't we hearing about this in the American press?
Well, remember, no one knew anything about the visit from Trump's Indian business partners until it appeared in the Indian press either. It seems like this is likely happening on many fronts. It's just being hidden from the American press. We only hear about it when it bubbles to the surface in the countries where Trump is pushing his business deals."
^^^ because he's keeping the 'regular' press pool at arm's length, and not letting them cover his meetings like they traditionally would be covering the President-elect's movements. He won't let the press anywhere near what he's doing. Now we know why.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Nov 21, 2016 18:41:55 GMT
You know what might be interesting? Posting this stories, but changing the name of the person involved. So instead of putting Trump's name, replace it with the name of some Democrat in power. Then watch everyone attack the person for wrong-doing. The big reveal - oh, wait...it was actually TRUMP who did it! And then see how they spin it to be OK after all.
It could be fun, but only for a short time. Then it would just be sad.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 21, 2016 19:10:39 GMT
Taking a page from the "other side's" book...
Clinton lost. She's history. Get over her.
The FBI (led these past years by a Republican) and a Republican-led Congress could find nothing with which to charge HRC. The Republicans have been after her for decades and have been able to charge her with... nothing.
Again, she's history, and not the next President of the United States.
So, with this in mind -- and without attempting to make Trump look better by comparing him to anyone else -- what do the pro-Trump people here think about Trump's actions since being elected? (I'm making it easy and not even asking about Trump's words and deeds these past ~50 years.)
Bannon
The obvious and, at this point, unrejected, support of Trump by the White Supremacist movement.
The (NON)separation of his businesses with his new role as P-elect.
Trump is apparently keeping "the good parts" of the ACA, so no abolishing that, as promised.
There will be no Wall, but maybe some wall and some fencing. Maybe.
All (est. 11M) of the illegal immigrants will not be deported. Maybe just the bad ones (est. 2-3M).
The alligators in the New Swamp are looking an awful lot like the alligators in the old swamp. Lots of familiar snouts.
Whiny, immature Tweets
My FIL voted for Trump and was 100% for him and believed every single thing Trump said. He's feeling a bit betrayed now, but isn't at the point where he'll say anything against Trump without saying five things against Obama/the Clintons. (He's another one who didn't quite grasp that Bill C. wasn't actually running for president.) It's tough to get him into a conversation about *just* Trump. He spent so many months comparing Trump and Clinton -- and going strictly by what Trump/Bill O'Reilly/Fox said about Clinton -- that he apparently cannot simply address Trump's issues.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Nov 21, 2016 20:04:32 GMT
I think a lot of people will feel betrayed IF they are willing to admit it. But will they? Personally, I would love to see Trump lead the country in an admirable way with everyone better off in 4 years than they are now. But from the first few steps he's making - and not even being in office yet! - I don't think that will be the case. And all of the promises that were made won't be kept.
Even better, they are talking about changing Medicare as well. Sure, if you're already on it you'll be fine - but for those who aren't quite there, they will be paying into a system that they won't ever benefit from. There are a LOT of people who are counting on Medicare being there when they retire. I'm still 20 years away from it - but if I have to pay 40+ years into a system that promised me insurance and care when I retire and then I get nothing, I'll be pretty upset. I'm just guessing here, but I'm probably not the only one who would be upset.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 21, 2016 22:14:26 GMT
Not sure what this means, but for me I think "give it time...he's gonna get himself impeached." I think someone may try, but I don't see it being successful.
Has there ever been an impeachment of a sitting President that actually resulted in a resignation? Nixon?
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 21, 2016 22:16:06 GMT
the last paragraphs of the article about the Argentinian deal:
"Why aren't we hearing about this in the American press?
Well, remember, no one knew anything about the visit from Trump's Indian business partners until it appeared in the Indian press either. It seems like this is likely happening on many fronts. It's just being hidden from the American press. We only hear about it when it bubbles to the surface in the countries where Trump is pushing his business deals."
^^^ because he's keeping the 'regular' press pool at arm's length, and not letting them cover his meetings like they traditionally would be covering the President-elect's movements. He won't let the press anywhere near what he's doing. Now we know why.
Did this also happen with a meeting with a Japanese official, the one that Ivanka also attended, or have I gotten my countries mixed up?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 22:19:10 GMT
the last paragraphs of the article about the Argentinian deal:
"Why aren't we hearing about this in the American press?
Well, remember, no one knew anything about the visit from Trump's Indian business partners until it appeared in the Indian press either. It seems like this is likely happening on many fronts. It's just being hidden from the American press. We only hear about it when it bubbles to the surface in the countries where Trump is pushing his business deals."
^^^ because he's keeping the 'regular' press pool at arm's length, and not letting them cover his meetings like they traditionally would be covering the President-elect's movements. He won't let the press anywhere near what he's doing. Now we know why.
Did this also happen with a meeting with a Japanese official, the one that Ivanka also attended, or have I gotten my countries mixed up? It did and it also happened with Indian business execs that he has deals with on some property in India.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 21, 2016 22:26:25 GMT
Did this also happen with a meeting with a Japanese official, the one that Ivanka also attended, or have I gotten my countries mixed up? It did and it also happened with Indian business execs that he has deals with on some property in India. Why wasn't al of this conflict of interest stuff not addressed prior to the election?
(general question, not addressing it to you personally)
|
|
motherlemur
Junior Member
Posts: 98
Jul 20, 2014 14:35:45 GMT
|
Post by motherlemur on Nov 21, 2016 22:30:21 GMT
Can someone enlighten me to who has the power to go against this man? Who controls the President? We all sit here and see the things he is doing even before he's in office and shake our head in disbelief, but what can we do? What would it take to not let him take office? What is the process to impeach and who does that? Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but I just don't know. How far can he actually go? But if he isn't president then we have to deal with Pence..
Jill
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 22:33:06 GMT
It did and it also happened with Indian business execs that he has deals with on some property in India. Why wasn't al of this conflict of interest stuff not addressed prior to the election?
(general question, not addressing it to you personally)
I'm as baffled as you are. My guess is that running live feeds of Trump's hate speak got them more ratings and clicks. I'm even more baffled that so many Americans are ignoring and/or dismissing this now, and that goes double for members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle. It's way more swampy than we could have imagined.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 21, 2016 22:52:08 GMT
before the election, he just didn't talk about how it would work.
He mentioned in passing a few times that his kids would run his businesses in a blind trust (which isn't really how one of those works) but as far as I know (which isn't much, admittedly), there were NEVER any specifics given about HOW, he, as a businessman, would separate his Presidency and governing from his Business interests.
If it was discussed, then someone can certainly correct me, but I really don't think it was ever talked about. (just like none of his actual policies was ever talked about)
|
|
mallie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,253
Jul 3, 2014 18:13:13 GMT
|
Post by mallie on Nov 21, 2016 23:12:58 GMT
Yes, Lynlam, Trump doesn't wear flip flops, so all is fine. We all know your priorities. Screw the law, as long as the criminal's toes are covered.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 21, 2016 23:14:30 GMT
Can someone enlighten me to who has the power to go against this man? Who controls the President? We all sit here and see the things he is doing even before he's in office and shake our head in disbelief, but what can we do? What would it take to not let him take office? What is the process to impeach and who does that? Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but I just don't know. How far can he actually go? But if he isn't president then we have to deal with Pence.. Jill I would like to know this information too. I'm not all that up on political procedures.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Nov 21, 2016 23:17:45 GMT
I think the only check on trump's actions is impeachment by congress. but trump takes the attitude of "ask for forgiveness, not permission"..except he doesn't ask forgiveness. unless you have someone around you that calls you on it.. it will be up to congress.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 0:26:19 GMT
Good article summarizing the numerous conflicts of interest in just the past few days India Argentina Japan "This is so obvious, so clear right in front of our faces, that it seems hard to see. These aren't conflicts of interest. The construct doesn't work for what we're dealign with. There is no conflict. Everything is working as planned. He's leveraging the office like one might leverage a business. When you have your hotel pitch foreign diplomatic delegations on bringing their business to your hotel, that's not a conflict. That's a revenue stream tied to owning the presidency. Same with expanding your business in countries where the US has critical diplomatic, economic and military relationships. "
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 13:41:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 1:42:40 GMT
Not sure what this means, but for me I think "give it time...he's gonna get himself impeached." Exactly, only a matter of time.IMHO
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 2:32:01 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. Proof?
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 2:34:16 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. I heard on ABC or NBC this weekend that it was ok because the Clinton foundation was for charity. Can't remember which channel it was as I just had it on in the background. It was either someone on George Stephonapolous or whatever the similar program is on NBC. It was not Meet the Press though. I'm surprised you posted lynlam. I honestly don't think people want a conversation, I think they really just want to keep talking to themselves wondering why none of the conservatives, and lately, independents aren't posting. I didn't support him or vote for him, so I can't speak for his supporters. But I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to bother answering. We've seen what happens when they do. No one wants to say, 'oh, so that's what you think'. They just want to tell them how wrong their thought is.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 2:35:32 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. You are the biggest hypocrite of all here, your guy is a liar, crooked to every orange hair, dishonest, and a fraud. He's a con man plain and simple. www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/politics/fec-trump-violations/index.html
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 22, 2016 2:39:55 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. I heard on ABC or NBC this weekend that it was ok because the Clinton foundation was for charity. Can't remember which channel it was as I just had it on in the background. It was either someone on George Stephonapolous or whatever the similar program is on NBC. It was not Meet the Press though. I'm surprised you posted lynlam. I honestly don't think people want a conversation, I think they really just want to keep talking to themselves wondering why none of the conservatives, and lately, independents aren't posting. I didn't support him or vote for him, so I can't speak for his supporters. But I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to bother answering. We've seen what happens when they do. No one wants to say, 'oh, so that's what you think'. They just want to tell them how wrong their thought is. I have to ask, why do you say that about liberals, but not conservatives? You saw what @lynlam posted. There isn't one shred of actual evidence for her claims, just a lot of right-wing hot air, but you blame the liberals for arguing with her rather than her for making that preposterous claim and then running off without supporting it in any way? No Clinton has made a single penny off the Foundation. They've done tons of good for many poor countries. They have a high Charity Watch rating. The pay-for-play claims have been debunked. But you're blaming US?!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 2:40:35 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. I heard on ABC or NBC this weekend that it was ok because the Clinton foundation was for charity. Can't remember which channel it was as I just had it on in the background. It was either someone on George Stephonapolous or whatever the similar program is on NBC. It was not Meet the Press though. I'm surprised you posted lynlam. I honestly don't think people want a conversation, I think they really just want to keep talking to themselves wondering why none of the conservatives, and lately, independents aren't posting. I didn't support him or vote for him, so I can't speak for his supporters. But I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to bother answering. We've seen what happens when they do. No one wants to say, 'oh, so that's what you think'. They just want to tell them how wrong their thought is. And your (and a few others) constant put downs just keep the lines of communication open. Big eye roll π here. Seriously--you think lynlam really wants to discuss? Nope. I'm not convinced you do either, but would rather just chastise the liberals. Smh.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 2:43:28 GMT
I heard on ABC or NBC this weekend that it was ok because the Clinton foundation was for charity. Can't remember which channel it was as I just had it on in the background. It was either someone on George Stephonapolous or whatever the similar program is on NBC. It was not Meet the Press though. I'm surprised you posted lynlam. I honestly don't think people want a conversation, I think they really just want to keep talking to themselves wondering why none of the conservatives, and lately, independents aren't posting. I didn't support him or vote for him, so I can't speak for his supporters. But I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to bother answering. We've seen what happens when they do. No one wants to say, 'oh, so that's what you think'. They just want to tell them how wrong their thought is. I have to ask, why do you say that about liberals, but not conservatives? You saw what @lynlam posted. There isn't one shred of actual evidence for her claims, just a lot of right-wing hot air, but you blame the liberals for arguing with her rather than her for making that preposterous claim and then running off without supporting it in any way? No Clinton has made a single penny off the Foundation. They've done tons of good for many poor countries. They have a high Charity Watch rating. The pay-for-play claims have been debunked. But you're blaming US?! Apparently Lucyg we are just supposed to sit down shut up and take it up the wazoo. It's really getting to be unbelievable at the righteousness of some conservatives here, that they really don't see/care what they have done, and just blame the liberals for every loving thing.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 22, 2016 2:44:33 GMT
Can someone enlighten me to who has the power to go against this man? Who controls the President? We all sit here and see the things he is doing even before he's in office and shake our head in disbelief, but what can we do? What would it take to not let him take office? What is the process to impeach and who does that? Pardon my ignorance in these matters, but I just don't know. How far can he actually go? But if he isn't president then we have to deal with Pence.. Jill I think I read that the actual electoral college can vote against him and for Clinton? I'm not sure exactly but they have some power to overturn the votes because she won the popular vote... anyone step in and and correct me.
|
|