Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    EmBeeFiveOhFour

    EmBeeFiveOhFour

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    636
    Reaction score
    1,952
    Location
    Near a River's Bend
    Offline
    The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    No, it's past comical. As I predicted, nothing presented is sufficient for you.
    Have a great day.
    Click to expand...

    Nothing you presented addressed any of my questions. I really want to have this conversation, DD. You're a history guy. You know these things. Can you show me anything that shows past presidents using their personal business to charge the government for expenses related to presidential activities, thus using government resources to increase the value of their businesses or personally enrich themselves?
     
    Dadsdream said:
    And you'll keep waiting, now that you've played the NAZI card. SS AGENTS . . . sheesh.
    This is why we can't have nice things.
    Click to expand...

    Hey, old man. You ever heard of the secret service that protects the president?

    Of course not. :)
     
    Dadsdream said:
    I see. A candidate for office must hand over total control of their assets to the point that it violates their constitutional rights as a citizen? OK.
    Click to expand...

    There is no Constitutional right to be President.

    And I'm not even necessarily talking about a law. We should be suspicious of anyone seeking the highest offices of the land. We should demand and receive transparency in their finances. I think it's ridiculous that Congress can trade on insider information.

    There is way too much money to be made to trust anyone in higher office, and we should make sure that personal financial interest is not conflicting with broader national interest in our highest offices.
     
    From the same Very Stable Genius book coming out next week

    Can you imagine if Obama didn’t know what Pearl Harbor was all about?

    Even now if Obama was caught genuinely and confusingly asking “What’s D-Day?” People would lose their minds

    Wonder what Joe’s opinion on this would be
    =============================

    “Hey, John, what’s this all about? What’s this a tour of?” Trump asks his then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, as the men prepare to take a private tour of the USS Arizona Memorial, which commemorates the December 1941 Japanese surprise attack in the Pacific that pulled the United States into World War II.

    “Trump had heard the phrase ‘Pearl Harbor’ and appeared to understand that he was visiting the scene of a historic battle, but he did not seem to know much else,” write the authors, later quoting a former senior White House adviser who concludes: “He was at times dangerously uninformed.”
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    From the same Very Stable Genius book coming out next week

    Can you imagine if Obama didn’t know what Pearl Harbor was all about?

    Even now if Obama was caught genuinely and confusingly asking “What’s D-Day?” People would lose their minds

    Wonder what Joe’s opinion on this would be
    =============================

    “Hey, John, what’s this all about? What’s this a tour of?” Trump asks his then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, as the men prepare to take a private tour of the USS Arizona Memorial, which commemorates the December 1941 Japanese surprise attack in the Pacific that pulled the United States into World War II.

    “Trump had heard the phrase ‘Pearl Harbor’ and appeared to understand that he was visiting the scene of a historic battle, but he did not seem to know much else,” write the authors, later quoting a former senior White House adviser who concludes: “He was at times dangerously uninformed.”
    Click to expand...

    Are they all still unnamed sources? At this point, I'm tired of these stories coming from anonymous sources. If he's really that dumb, crude and disrespectful, just come out and say it publicly.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    Prove me wrong. Prove that there haven't been past accusations regarding expenditures for presidential personal retreats, trips and security in previous administrations.
    Click to expand...
    Who cares?

    Seriously, if someone got away with something in the past, or the US acted badly in the past, what does that have to do with preventing wrongdoing now, or preventing a bad thing from happening now? So since the US acted horribly in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male that means we shouldn't care if they did something similar today? That's a most ridiculous defense of something. So yeah, you know your bad history. It does not excuse wrongdoing now, nor does it mean we should not care about doing the right thing now and going forward.
     
    V Chip said:
    Who cares?
    Click to expand...
    My thought exactly when the topic of money being spent on the president going to the national championship game was brought up several pages ago. And now we have come full circle.
     
    Last edited:
    Dadsdream said:
    My thought exactly when the topic of money being spent on the president going to the national championship game was brought up several pages ago. And now we have come full circle.
    Click to expand...
    Ah, but you’re saying who cares to potential wrongdoing NOW. That’s important. Deflecting by saying “it’s happened in the past” doesn’t address things now.

    If you don’t care about it (or this specific instance) on its own, just say you don’t care about it now. Bringing up stuff in the past has pretty much zero bearing on it today.
     
    UncleTrvlingJim said:
    Are they all still unnamed sources? At this point, I'm tired of these stories coming from anonymous sources. If he's really that dumb, crude and disrespectful, just come out and say it publicly.
    Click to expand...

    The problem is that if these are individuals that are still working in the White House/For the Administration, speaking publicly would mean their quick ouster. Eventually, there would be no one in the inner circle who was giving information that is crucial, and we would be limited to the information that the White House officially released.

    The interesting thing is the lack of individuals who are running to say that these unnamed sources are lying.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom