Nanker Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 And Nunnes is obstructing a serious investigation that has bi-partisan support. Trump, Russian money, hacking, state department gutted, lies, lies and more lies, Russian gangsters and all. This things stinks to high heaven and only a bitter partisan would look the other way Attack the poster, ignore the topic. Same crap different topic with you guys Nunes isn't obstructing the investigation. The FBI isn't cooperating. It wasn't about you. One of the new critters was bragging about his education credentials and disparaging someone else's.
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) I didn't know that slimy Podesta was collecting 140 grand a year as a senior advisor for the state department in 2016. I was wrong. See how easy that is crusaders? That's not the first or last time I'll be wrong on this board. If I start a campaign and hire staffers, I still don't consider them government officials. Edited March 29, 2017 by gatorbait
Deranged Rhino Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I didn't know that slimy Podesta was collecting 140 grand a year as a senior advisor for the state department in 2016. I was wrong. See how easy that is crusaders? That's not the first or last time I'll be wrong on this board. If I start a campaign and hire staffers, I still don't consider them government officials. Who hurt you?
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Who hurt you? Do you go outside with your tinfoil hat on? Or is that just when you're inside? You old farts better knock down this young buck when I am wrong, that's what the old and wise are supposed to do. It's going to take a lot more for me to get butt hurt.
GG Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 You guys pointing to Clinton and her team to justify Trump's team, makes you look foolish and guilty. No one is doing that. The only reason that Clinton was brought into this discussion is to illustrate the stupidity of tying Trump's advisors' contacts with Russians as proof of some nefarious plot. High placed individuals in EACH candidates' campaigns had conversations with Russians, just like they had conversations with the European, Chinese & Japanese big wigs. You can argue that it would be incompetent not to do it.
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Pointing to them to say this is normal politics and how things go, doesn't sit well with me. Politicians aren't supposed to have any business ties to other countries, it is a conflict of interest. People were claiming Clinton is corrupt and rightfully so. I'm not claiming anything nefarious, just that there is smoke and an FBI investigation. We will see in the end what happens, probably nothing, like the FBI investigations about Clinton's emails.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Rhino, government officials who get paid with our tax money, and campaign officials are not the same thing. Try again. Paul Manafort was never a government official.
GG Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Pointing to them to say this is normal politics and how things go, doesn't sit well with me. Politicians aren't supposed to have any business ties to other countries, it is a conflict of interest. People were claiming Clinton is corrupt and rightfully so. I'm not claiming anything nefarious, just that there is smoke and an FBI investigation. We will see in the end what happens, probably nothing, like the FBI investigations about Clinton's emails. That is a tall order to ask for a change in established practice. You can have an idealistic view that anyone in government should never have any financial dealings with the private sector or vice versa, and in that process will eliminate 99.9% of quality candidates. Since we can't get away from comparing Trump's staff with Clinton's staff, I'm not aware of anyone on Trump's team who simultaneously was on the State Department Payroll, the family foundation payroll and an outside consultancy payroll that was involved in federal contracts. That is a slam dunk conflicts issue that was slouthed off. My biggest concern with Trump isn't his external advisors and team, but his immediate family, who are getting far too much latitude.
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 That is a tall order to ask for a change in established practice. You can have an idealistic view that anyone in government should never have any financial dealings with the private sector or vice versa, and in that process will eliminate 99.9% of quality candidates. Since we can't get away from comparing Trump's staff with Clinton's staff, I'm not aware of anyone on Trump's team who simultaneously was on the State Department Payroll, the family foundation payroll and an outside consultancy payroll that was involved in federal contracts. That is a slam dunk conflicts issue that was slouthed off. My biggest concern with Trump isn't his external advisors and team, but his immediate family, who are getting far too much latitude. I agree with all of this, especially in regards to his immediate family. You guys might have to school me again here though. Private sector business is all right, but don't they draw the line with foreign business ties and governments? I could be wrong again, surprise surprise, but business ties to a foreign power exclude you from being a presidential candidate because of conflict of interest, right?
Tiberius Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Paul Manafort was never a government official. Just a paid Putin official
Deranged Rhino Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Do you go outside with your tinfoil hat on? Or is that just when you're inside? You old farts better knock down this young buck when I am wrong, that's what the old and wise are supposed to do. It's going to take a lot more for me to get butt hurt. I'm not an old fart. And you're clearly lacking a sense of humor. Pointing to them to say this is normal politics and how things go, doesn't sit well with me. No one is doing that. Hardly anyone on this board is even defending Trump if you haven't paid attention. I'm just pointing out the error in your own statement, which was absurdly ignorant.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Just a paid Putin official [This is an automated response.] You're not trying to make a point, you're just a jerk. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.8.
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I'm not an old fart. And you're clearly lacking a sense of humor. No one is doing that. Hardly anyone on this board is even defending Trump if you haven't paid attention. I'm just pointing out the error in your own statement, which was absurdly ignorant. I admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong. I am starting to get addicted to this politics stuff, so get used to me. I will learn the nuances over time. There is humor on PPP? News to me. Politics can bring out the worst in people from my experience.
GG Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I agree with all of this, especially in regards to his immediate family. You guys might have to school me again here though. Private sector business is all right, but don't they draw the line with foreign business ties and governments? I could be wrong again, surprise surprise, but business ties to a foreign power exclude you from being a presidential candidate because of conflict of interest, right? How far do you want to extend the reach? You can play the game of circumstantial evidence all day long with a former government official who joined a private consultancy that was hired by a foreign bank which has one of its directors living next door to a foreign ruler's babysitter. (Kind of like your where there's smoke allegations up the thread)
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I'm not a fan of the circumstantial stuff. I'm talking about direct business ties with an acting politician or president to a foreign power. Is that considered a conflict of interest? Like how Trump was supposed to cut ties with all of his businesses because it's considered a conflict of interest if he remains involved.
Deranged Rhino Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 I'm not a fan of the circumstantial stuff. I'm talking about direct business ties with an acting politician or president to a foreign power. Is that considered a conflict of interest? Like how Trump was supposed to cut ties with all of his businesses because it's considered a conflict of interest if he remains involved. It depends on the circumstance. I admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong. I am starting to get addicted to this politics stuff, so get used to me. I will learn the nuances over time. There is humor on PPP? News to me. Politics can bring out the worst in people from my experience. Try approaching things as a conversation rather than a debate and you'll get a lot more informed real fast.
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) It depends on the circumstance. Haha damnit Rhino is anything in politics cut and dry? My lawyers could have a field day with all this circumstantial ****. Edited March 29, 2017 by gatorbait
Tiberius Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 [This is an automated response.] You're not trying to make a point, you're just a jerk. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.8. Yup, nothing to see here.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/22/paul-manaforts-plan-greatly-benefit-putin-government/99483224/ WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 Yup, nothing to see here.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/22/paul-manaforts-plan-greatly-benefit-putin-government/99483224/ [This is an automated response.] Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.8.
gatorbait Posted March 29, 2017 Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) It depends on the circumstance. Try approaching things as a conversation rather than a debate and you'll get a lot more informed real fast. I'm civil at work, with family, and on the stadium wall. Mostly I try to have convos on here but debates are more fun. No formal pattycaking here on PPP is why I started lurking in the first place. Even when I lose I still enjoy it, maybe I'm a sucker for punishment. Edited March 29, 2017 by gatorbait
Recommended Posts