How can this not be a conflict of interests?

Archives, if we're all on teams and this is just a game why should anyone care what the losers have to say?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
elections have consequences. Unfortunately for the libs, the longer they continue to claim that russian hacking and white supremacy decided the election instead of realizing that their candidate was NOT the most qualified person ever, it will continue to be this way.
Click to expand...
We should all care about our democracy being hacked by Russia.

This is not going to change the election outcome.

Let's all try to be on the side of America and democracy.
 
Guille said:
Nixon thought a lot of things, are we going to buy into all of them?
Click to expand...

I think we can view him as being a seriously low bar in terms of what is acceptable.

But, I don't really care. The point is that personal economic ties of significant size DO affect decision making. And, we should not want that, regardless of who the president is.

In the immediate term, we are seeing personal fortune and foreign policy intersecting in Eastern Europe and the ME. We as Americans should care about our standing in these areas.

Also, we have US corporations who are faced with competition from Trump's corporation, where Trump's corporation has full inside knowledge of everything the US is doing at ALL security levels and where the president has demonstrated a willingness to affect the business position of individual companies.


I don't care who the president is - this isn't healthy.
 
archives said:
Trump is meeting/talking to foreign leaders, businessmen, plus leaders of major Corporations. His sons, who supposedly he is going to turn his business over to, are participating in these closed door meetings. Why? Who are they representing? Their not part of the formal transition team so why are they there?

"drain the swamp," too funny, Trump is institutionalizing the swamp but in his business name
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that the phrase "Drain the swamp" might mean different things to different people?
 
WillReadmore said:
I think we can view him as being a seriously low bar in terms of what is acceptable.

But, I don't really care. The point is that personal economic ties of significant size DO affect decision making. And, we should not want that, regardless of who the president is.

In the immediate term, we are seeing personal fortune and foreign policy intersecting in Eastern Europe and the ME. We as Americans should care about our standing in these areas.

Also, we have US corporations who are faced with competition from Trump's corporation, where Trump's corporation has full inside knowledge of everything the US is doing at ALL security levels and where the president has demonstrated a willingness to affect the business position of individual companies.


I don't care who the president is - this isn't healthy.
Click to expand...

Nixon thought the President is above the law. Nixon thought sucking Chinese dick was a good idea. I could go on and on about Nixon.

See, this is why people don't get along in this country: I actually kind of agree with you but instead of just making your point in your own words you tried to paint me as a GOP Nixon supporter and then use him against me which will result in nothing happening at all except for me farting in your general direction.
 
Guille said:
Nixon thought the President is above the law. Nixon thought sucking Chinese dick was a good idea. I could go on and on about Nixon.

See, this is why people don't get along in this country: I actually kind of agree with you but instead of just making your point in your own words you tried to paint me as a GOP Nixon supporter and then use him against me which will result in nothing happening at all except for me farting in your general direction.
Click to expand...

No, you need to go back and re-read. I didn't accuse you of anything at all. I merely used Nixon as an example of a president who wasn't exceptionally interested in being within the law, yet he divested himself of ALL investments.


And, sad to say, your "I'll blow you out of the water" seems to be just one more fart joke.
 
WillReadmore said:
No, you need to go back and re-read. I didn't accuse you of anything at all. I merely used Nixon as an example of a president who wasn't exceptionally interested in being within the law, yet he divested himself of ALL investments.


And, sad to say, your "I'll blow you out of the water" seems to be just one more fart joke.
Click to expand...

You didn't accuse me personally but you definitely painted with a broad brush. Are you ever going to tell me what post you want me to respond to?
 
Brain Food said:
Lol. Your boy isn't do'in to good in the publics eye, is he? Both sides have questions now. Shits starting to hit the fan. I'm not get'in under your skin, am I?
Click to expand...

Once again, we have a perfect example of a liberal mistaking amusement for something else.

I'm laughing at you, not with you. :D
 
Brain Food said:
Lol. Your boy isn't do'in to good in the publics eye, is he? Both sides have questions now. Shits starting to hit the fan. I'm not get'in under your skin, am I?
Click to expand...

My old English teacher wouldn't even bother uncapping the red pen, she'd just beat the ever loving fuck out of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top