aristocrat Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Oh please - how many Chinese trademarks did Ivanka receive while working at the WH? so that makes this ok?
BillStime Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, aristocrat said: so that makes this ok? Ask the OP
aristocrat Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Just now, BillStime said: Ask the OP i'm asking you
LeGOATski Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, aristocrat said: so that makes this ok? 1 minute ago, BillStime said: Ask the OP Ask both! Or just post a fun gif!
Warcodered Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, aristocrat said: i'm asking you No it wouldn't be right and Hunter Biden selling his "influence" again is skeevy, and not all that surprising from him, but there really isn't anything to this yet until it's actually connected to Joe. Edited July 13, 2021 by Warcodered
BillStime Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 4 minutes ago, aristocrat said: i'm asking you After the past four years of grift - go lecture someone else about decorum.
Doc Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, BillStime said: Oh please - how many Chinese trademarks did Ivanka receive while working at the WH? What does this have to do with anything?
aristocrat Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, BillStime said: After the past four years of grift - go lecture someone else about decorum. so we started 4 more years of grift? got it
Chef Jim Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, aristocrat said: so we started 4 more years of grift? got it And now it’s ok I guess. 🤷🏻♂️
BillStime Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Just now, aristocrat said: so we started 4 more years of grift? got it I dunno - how much of our tax dollars has Joe spent at his golf courses and hotels?
aristocrat Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: I dunno - how much of our tax dollars has Joe spent at his golf courses and hotels? what does that have to do with this subject? let's stay on track.
Chef Jim Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: I dunno - how much of our tax dollars has Joe spent at his golf courses and hotels? I’d rather he did that than raise taxes like he is likely to do.
Warcodered Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, Chef Jim said: I’d rather he did that than raise taxes like he is likely to do. I mean technically the implications of this is you'd rather have a less funded inefficient government than a better funded more efficient one.
aristocrat Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 7 minutes ago, BillStime said: I dunno - how much of our tax dollars has Joe spent at his golf courses and hotels? But this is the paragraph of Ioffe’s report that went viral on Friday, that I found so triggering. In this example, and a few others, Ioffe, as she admits, lets some reporters stay off the record: “Democrats in general have a much thinner skin,” observed the prominent White House reporter. “This is not unique to Trump but Republicans never expect a fair shake, so if you cover them fairly, you can have a good working relationship with them. Democrats de facto expect you to be on their side and are horrified when you hold them to account as you would any other administration. It goes back to the Obama years. [Obama staffers would be] like, ‘Don’t you realize that being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition?!’ And I would be like, ‘Yes, but I’m writing about why your website keeps crashing.’” They will never cover your administration with any type of integrity.
OrangeBills Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, aristocrat said: But this is the paragraph of Ioffe’s report that went viral on Friday, that I found so triggering. In this example, and a few others, Ioffe, as she admits, lets some reporters stay off the record: “Democrats in general have a much thinner skin,” observed the prominent White House reporter. “This is not unique to Trump but Republicans never expect a fair shake, so if you cover them fairly, you can have a good working relationship with them. Democrats de facto expect you to be on their side and are horrified when you hold them to account as you would any other administration. It goes back to the Obama years. [Obama staffers would be] like, ‘Don’t you realize that being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition?!’ And I would be like, ‘Yes, but I’m writing about why your website keeps crashing.’” They will never cover your administration with any type of integrity. Country is truly gone 1
Chef Jim Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, Warcodered said: I mean technically the implications of this is you'd rather have a less funded inefficient government than a better funded more efficient one. So to you more money for government equals a more efficient government. Boy have they pulled the wool over your eyes. In business more efficient typically means less waste. Something the government just doesn’t understand. And you know why? They are never ever held accountable. Let me ask you. Now much of the $1.2 trillion of our tax dollars for the infrastructure bill is going towards a more efficient government?
Warcodered Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Just now, Chef Jim said: So to you more money for government equals a more efficient government. Boy have they pulled the wool over your eyes. In business more efficient typically means less waste. Something the government just doesn’t understand. And you know why? They are never ever held accountable. Let me ask you. Now much of the $1.2 trillion of our tax dollars for the infrastructure bill is going towards a more efficient government? No to me paying the President and the various people required so he can play golf is inefficient. Your statement before basically breaks down to you'd rather the government waste money on the President playing a bunch of golf than us funding it more but we don't waste as much money on golf. I mean I doubt that's specifically what you meant but that's vaguely what's implied.
Chef Jim Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, Warcodered said: No to me paying the President and the various people required so he can play golf is inefficient. Your statement before basically breaks down to you'd rather the government waste money on the President playing a bunch of golf than us funding it more but we don't waste as much money on golf. I mean I doubt that's specifically what you meant but that's vaguely what's implied. No. The amount we as taxpayers spend on a President’s leisure is a pittance compared to the incredible waste found in all levels of government left/right/center. Money spent on a President’s leisure (any President) is not a waste. Money spent to line politicians’, and their “posse’s” pockets or for pet projects is obviously a waste.
Governor Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 This is a travesty! I certainly won’t be voting for Hunter Biden again and I demand his resignation from his official WH post.
Recommended Posts