|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42816 Posts
On May 25 2017 09:44 pmh wrote:Has 250k invested In Gazprom and rosneft=has 250k invested in rusian index funds. Really? Then I guess many more people are "guilty" So many people have invested in world wide and regional tracker funds,either directly themselves or indirectly via their bank or their pensions. And Gazprom and rosneft being amongst the biggest companys in rusia no doubt are represented. It's a super easy question to answer without body slamming anyone.
"Yo, why do you have so much money invested in Russia?"
"Two things, firstly, I'm like insanely rich so basically I have a totally insignificant investment in Russia. If I wanted to speculate in Russia I'd buy $100m, not $250k. Also secondly, I pay a dude to invest money for me because I'm insanely rich and that's what rich dudes do so go ask him maybe."
|
Actually it wasn't even about the Russian thing. The reporter had merely written about it in the past. It was for asking about the CBO score.
Reporter: CBO score, you know, as you've been waiting to make your decision on .. Healthcare bill until the score and it just came out .. and when Gianforte: [interrupting] yeah, we'll talk to you about that later Reporter: Yeah, but there's not going to be time, I'm just curious .. Gianforte: [interrupting] Speak with Shane Reporter: please, but .. (muffled sounds) Someone, possibly Gianforte: (?) this fucker or some other expletive (?) (loud thud) (scrambling noises) Gianforte: [shouting] I'm sick and tired of you guys .. the last night you guys came in here and did the same thing. Get the HELL outta here. Get the hell outta here. Gianforte: The last time/night you do the same thing. You with the Guardian? Reporter: Yes .. you just broke my glasses Gianforte: The last guy did the same. Damn. Thing. Reporter: You just body slammed me and broke my glasses. Gianforte: Get the hell outta here. Reporter: You'd like me to get the hell out of here [inaudible] call the police Reporter: Can I get you guys's names? ..
(rough audio transcript from reddit)www.reddit.com
|
Going to color everything now. Imagine he wins, well that's amazing, people are ready to vote for republicans even after they bodyslam journalists. He loses, well you can't draw any conclusions about progressivism from that, the guy just bodyslammed a journalist, of course he lost...
|
On May 25 2017 10:10 Nebuchad wrote: Going to color everything now. Imagine he wins, well that's amazing, people are ready to vote for republicans even after they bodyslam journalists. He loses, well you can't draw any conclusions about progressivism from that, the guy just bodyslammed a journalist, of course he lost... I can imagine quite a few people will view this as a real man who swats away lying "MSM journalists" and did a favour for the people.
|
Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy.
|
On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy.
Even with the audio?
|
On May 25 2017 10:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Even with the audio?
When has audio ever stopped the GOP? Pussygate? Actually anything Trump has said honestly.
|
On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Jacobs does look like a weenie.
|
On May 25 2017 10:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Even with the audio? I doubt that the mouthpieces of the Trump party are going to be playing that tape tomorrow. Local news might, but unless it's verified by Hannity, Limbaugh, and not laughed at Alex Jones it'll be ignored by the right in this country.
|
On May 25 2017 10:19 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Even with the audio? When has audio ever stopped the GOP? Pussygate? Actually anything Trump has said honestly.
Well they didn't deny that Trump was making the comments, they just said they didn't care that he did. If they're going to push that the journalist's at fault for this, that's a step up.
|
On May 25 2017 10:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Even with the audio? The various algorithms that dictate what people read/view/listen to are too fine-tuned. The audio will not reach the people who are likely to vote for him, and if it does get through somehow, confirmation bias will set in as biology]major said.
|
On May 25 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Jacobs does look like a weenie. Oh well that makes it okay then
|
On May 25 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Jacobs does look like a weenie. Yeah, the political candidate with security guards really showed him. Nothing says weenie like "I will totally get arrested if I fight back."
|
|
On May 25 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Jacobs does look like a weenie. You just enjoy provoking libs in the era of Trump, don't you.
|
United States7316 Posts
I'm pretty tired of the Ben Carson's of the world.
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trumps-company-isnt-tracking-all-the-money-it-gets-from-foreign-governments/527997/?utm_source=atltw
Days before taking office, Donald Trump said his company would donate all profits from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury, part of an effort to avoid even the appearance of a conflict with the Constitution’s emoluments clause.
Now, however, the Trump Organization is telling Congress that determining exactly how much of its profits come from foreign governments is simply more trouble than it’s worth.
In response to a document request from the House Oversight Committee, Trump’s company sent a copy of an eight-page pamphlet detailing how it plans to track payments it receives from foreign governments at the firm’s many hotels, golf courses, and restaurants across the globe. But while the Trump Organization said it would set aside all money it collects from customers that identify themselves as representing a foreign government, it would not undertake a more intensive effort to determine if a payment would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on public office holders accepting an “emolument” from a foreign state.
“To fully and completely identify all patronage at our Properties by customer type is impractical in the service industry and putting forth a policy that requires all guests to identify themselves would impede upon personal privacy and diminish the guest experience of our brand,” the Trump Organization wrote in its policy pamphlet, which the company’s chief compliance officer said had been distributed to general managers and senior officials at all of its properties.
The statement drew an angry response from the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who said the policy “raised grave concerns about the president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution.” In a letter replying to the company, Cummings said it would be easy for a government like Russia to funnel money to the Trump Organization through unofficial entities, such as RT, its state-run television station. “Those payments would not be tracked in any way and would be hidden from the American public,” the Democrat wrote.
While the committee’s Republican, Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, joined Cummings in the original request for documents from the Trump Organization, he did not sign the latest missive in response. Chaffetz has announced he will resign from Congress at the end of June. A spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
In a statement accompanying his letter, Cummings said the president had two options if his company could not adequately track payments from foreign governments. One would be to do what Democrats and independent ethics officials have long urged: fully divest from his businesses. Short of that, Trump could submit a proposal to Congress asking for its consent to a different arrangement.
The president has given no indication he intends to do so, and his attorneys have described his decision to donate foreign government profits to the Treasury as voluntary, since they argue the president is not subject to the emoluments clause of other conflicts-of-interest laws governing most federal employees. Ethics experts in both parties, however, have disagreed with that interpretation. “Rep. Cummings is right,” tweeted Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “This is a wholly inadequate response to the president’s constitutional violations.”
They said it would be impractical. Impractical to comply with the Constitution. It's to hard and they won't be profitable if we do that, so we won't do it.
|
On May 25 2017 11:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2017 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2017 10:13 biology]major wrote: Not really, the journalist was an evil liberal. Our country is divided, liberals are evil, and conservatives are dumb ignorant deplorables. Justification is super easy. Jacobs does look like a weenie. You just enjoy provoking libs in the era of Trump, don't you. I assumed he was joking, but xDaunt has always liked to piss people off from what I can tell
|
|
Its not like anyones really all that careful to not piss anyone off in the thread.
|
|
|
|