America under President Trump

[taxme]

Just now, Omni said:

Ah, you're funny. You really need to read more before commenting.

I am quite happy with my replies and comments. 

[taxme]

Just now, Omni said:

And the W stands for?

Wake up, liberal. 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

I am quite happy with my replies and comments. 

Yes, ignorance is bliss. Or at least it can be apparently.

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

I can imagine you are mired in some sort of Hillary/pizzagate nonsense eh?

Time will tell us as to if your darling Hillary, and her ilk will get nailed over the democrat pedophile pizzagate ring affair.   

[taxme]

Just now, Omni said:

Yes, ignorance is bliss. Or at least it can be apparently.

Common sense and logic has worked well for me. But it is ok with me if you wish to hang on too your blissful ignorance.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

So Trump was overheard remarking that Gianforte's election was a "great win". Can't wait to see the imagery of Trump visiting him in jail to congratulate him.

I do so hope he does go to jail.  I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice.

Edited May 26, 2017 by bcsapper

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I do so hope he does go to jail.  I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice.

They've deemed it a misdemeanor so I don't know if that could amount to jail time or not in that state. But I also am not holding my breath. I'm surprised there seems to be only audio of the event. You'd think someone would have at least an Iphone version.

[Omni]

12 minutes ago, taxme said:

Time will tell us as to if your darling Hillary, and her ilk will get nailed over the democrat pedophile pizzagate ring affair.   

Pizzagate is a joke man, get over it.

[Omni]

I'm just interested to hear what the Trump supporters here have to say about the fact that Trump praises Duterte, while Duterte praises Hitler.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/25/senators-from-both-parties-blast-outrageous-trump-call-praising-duterte-for-anti-drug-killing-spree/

[bush_cheney2004]

FDR admired Mussolini, and Pierre Trudeau was a Hitler fan too.....so what ?

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm just interested to hear what the Trump supporters here have to say about the fact that Trump praises Duterte, while Duterte praises Hitler.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/25/senators-from-both-parties-blast-outrageous-trump-call-praising-duterte-for-anti-drug-killing-spree/

If there is any complaint it'll be in hopes that Trump dial it back a little by not making what's obvious about the right-wing TOO obvious - that the only thing more pathetic than left-wing PC is right-wing PC.

[Omni]

Well lets see, Kellyanne has been silenced, Sean Spicer has been silence, now Jarrod has been silenced. who's next? 

[kimmy]

On 5/25/2017 at 6:45 PM, Hal 9000 said:

The Saudi's are sheet bags - no doubt, but if we can use their money for the betterment of society, well.....so be it.

Agreed.

On 5/25/2017 at 6:45 PM, Hal 9000 said:

I've always maintained that we and/or americans have to do business with countries who have human rights violations - it's not the best scenario, but if we didn't, we'd not do any business at all.  Even Canada is a huge human rights violator as far as the U.N is concerned.

Agreed.

On 5/25/2017 at 6:45 PM, Hal 9000 said:

I've never had any issue where Hillary got money - and I think you'll find that post a few pages back.

You might not have an issue with where Hillary got money, but Trump himself certainly did, and said so loudly and in no uncertain terms during the campaign. 

Can you at least agree that it's extremely hypocritical for the Trumps to accept donations and gifts from the Saudis after blasting Hillary for the exact same thing just a few months before?

Can you agree that it's funny how Republican-boosters who howled in outrage that Obama bowed to the Saudi king haven't said a single peep about Trump doing the same last week?

On 5/25/2017 at 6:45 PM, Hal 9000 said:

IHillary claimed to be a champion of women, took money from SA and pretty much kept it, then may or may not have given favours to SA. 

The claim that less than 10% of Clinton Foundation revenue went to charity is a falsehood based on a half-truth.

It is true that less than 10% of Clinton Foundation revenue was given out as charitable grants.

It is false that the rest of the money was spent on overhead, salaries, or pocketed by the Clintons.

The "misunderstanding" (a deliberate one, I think, in many cases) comes from the implication that giving grants is the only charitable thing a charitable foundation does and the rest must therefore be waste. Many Republicans promoted that interpretation during the campaign.

But grants aren't the whole story. Imagine a guy gets called into the accounting office at work. "You submitted an expense claim for $580 for your trip, but you only spent $42 on gas! Less than 10% of these so-called expenses went to gas! Are you trying to rip us off?"    Well, that implication is grossly unfair, because gas isn't the only expense. There's hotels and food, as well.

In the case of the Clinton Foundation, they distributed a small percentage via grants, but spent a far larger portion on providing direct services.

For more on that topic, if you're interested...

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
 

Quote

 

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

By only looking at the amount the Clinton Foundation doled out in grants, Fiorina “is showing her lack of understanding of charitable organizations,” Borochoff said. “She’s thinking of the Clinton Foundation as a private foundation.” Those kinds of foundations are typically supported by money from a few people, and the money is then distributed to various charities. The Clinton Foundation, however, is a public charity, he said. It mostly does its own charitable work. It has over 2,000 employees worldwide.

“What she’s doing is looking at how many grants they write to other groups,” Borochoff said. “If you are going to look at it that way, you may as well criticize every other operating charity on the planet.”

 

 -k

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

Agreed.

Agreed.

So two wrongs make a right.

Isn't that special.

[Wilber]

I disagree with the first comment. People like the Saudi's don't give 100M away without expecting something in return and they are giving it to a private individual who holds a public position of great influence on national policy.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Wilber

[Wilber]

22 hours ago, taxme said:

Oh, yes it does. And those courts and judges will soon find out as to who is the real boss here. 

The Constitution and the law are the real boss, not some reality TV personality.

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

I disagree with the first comment. People like the Saudi's don't give 100M away without expecting something in return and they are giving it to a private individual who holds a public position of great influence on national policy.

The $100Mil. is split between 2 countries (at least).  Let's say the Saudi's are spending $50Million.  So, what is $50Million of $110,000,000,000.00. (that is $110 thousand million dollars)?  It's nothing, it's like buying McDonalds and dropping the nickel into the charity can.  It's like buying a new car and tossing the salesperson a 20$ Tim Hortons card. 

Also, it's a foundation run by the World Bank and Invanka doesn't really have any control of the money.

[Wilber]

Just now, Hal 9000 said:

The $100Mil. is split between 2 countries (at least).  Let's say the Saudi's are spending $50Million.  So, what is $50Million of $110,000,000,000.00. (that is $110 thousand million dollars)?  It's nothing, it's like buying McDonalds and dropping the nickel into the charity can.  It's like buying a new car and tossing the salesperson a 20$ Tim Hortons card. 

Also, it's a foundation run by the World Bank and Invanka doesn't really have any control of the money.

The arms deal is with the US, not the Trump family or their personal interests.  So I have to assume that If Lockmart donates 100 M to Sophie Trudeau's personal charity for Canada committing to the F-35 purchase, or from Boeing to buy a whack of F-18E's, you would be just fine with that.

[Hal 9000]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The arms deal is with the US, not the Trump family or their personal interests.  So I have to assume that If Lockmart donates 100 M to Sophie Trudeau's personal charity for Canada committing to the F-35 purchase, or from Boeing to buy a whack of F-18E's, you would be just fine with that.

Well, I still don't think you understand the concept of who is making the purchase and who is the seller.  In this scenario, it could be argued that the seller (Lockmart) used money to secure a sales deal - this is the Clinton formula....and arguably corrupt.

Now, if the Saudi's gave 100$million to Ivanka's foundation and Trump signed a deal for America or americans to BUY FROM THEM, that would be the Clinton formula and again - corrupt. 

[Hal 9000]

Wilbur - I am trying real hard to explain this without insulting your intelligence, but maybe that's just not possible.

Ok, so here are two different scenarios;

1) I am representing my company and using shareholders money to purchase a fleet of pick-ups.  I go to Dodge, Ford and Chevy.  The Dodge salesmen knows I also represent a foundation and pledges $1,000 to that foundation if I buy their trucks - If I do buy from Dodge (and take the pledge), I am now using my professional influence and spending shareholder money to improve my private foundation.  This is how the Clintons operate, this is corrupt!

2) I am representing my company and using shareholders money to purchase a fleet of pick-ups.  I go to Dodge, Ford and Chevy.  I decide that the best trucks and best deal is from Ford.  I hear that the Ford dealer supports a foundation and I talk to the shareholders and decide that we'll donate $1000 to that foundation.  This is the Ivanka situation and totally legal, totally acceptable.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Hal 9000

[dialamah]

Trump will not be able to address UK parliament during State visit.

John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was “strongly opposed” to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was “not an automatic right” but “an earned honour”.

 

[Wilber]

21 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Well, I still don't think you understand the concept of who is making the purchase and who is the seller.  In this scenario, it could be argued that the seller (Lockmart) used money to secure a sales deal - this is the Clinton formula....and arguably corrupt.

Now, if the Saudi's gave 100$million to Ivanka's foundation and Trump signed a deal for America or americans to BUY FROM THEM, that would be the Clinton formula and again - corrupt. 

You obviously don't understand conflict of interest. The Saudis have no interest in advancing women's issues, quite the opposite, this is in expectation of further favours. Hey, remember when we gave 100M to your foundation, maybe you could help us out with this little issue. But hey, you are fine with your politician taking donations to their causes with a quid pro quo expected.

You are fine with your elected government politicians taking donations to their causes in return for doing business with your country.

[Omni]

29 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Well, I still don't think you understand the concept of who is making the purchase and who is the seller.  In this scenario, it could be argued that the seller (Lockmart) used money to secure a sales deal - this is the Clinton formula....and arguably corrupt.

Now, if the Saudi's gave 100$million to Ivanka's foundation and Trump signed a deal for America or americans to BUY FROM THEM, that would be the Clinton formula and again - corrupt. 

It doesn't matter who is buying from whom, the extra dough certainly has the appearance of greasing the wheels of the deal. And since it is the Trump's deal/ foundation then it must be the Trump formula.

[Bob Macadoo]

Extortion.....bribery....it's all in good fun when you're a winner......and winning bigly.

3 hours ago, Omni said:

It doesn't matter who is buying from whom, the extra dough certainly has the appearance of greasing the wheels of the deal. And since it is the Trump's deal/ foundation then it must be the Trump formula.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

It's the same formula used by Canadian corporations for decades. 

Even Team Trudeau's ministers are running about the Land of Trump trying to keep it all together (e.g. NAFTA).