Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

This is extra text with a test link..

Register Now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

President Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

    Look at the volume of donations to the Clinton Foundation when she was Sec. State and when she was running in 2016 vs. donations after she lost in 2016. Hillary has been bought and paid for by the highest bidder for the last 10-15 years.
    This is not only limited to Hillary. Trump has been bought and paid for, likely by the Russians, Saudis or whomever. The US political system is set up that way. Lobbyists and influence peddlers are everywhere. The key question is who is pulling the strings in the background and what's their agenda.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

      Look at the volume of donations to the Clinton Foundation when she was Sec. State and when she was running in 2016 vs. donations after she lost in 2016. Hillary has been bought and paid for by the highest bidder for the last 10-15 years.
      Would be sweet to dig this stuff up on drumpf, but he's either refusing subpoenas, using the DoJ as his own personal lawyer suing to stop things from being released, or under investigation... But, spin/deflect/don't answer because as usual, you can't actually defend any of this... Witch hunt! Or is it still her emails? Obama? But Bill...? Look, a squirrel...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gwelfgulfer View Post

        Would be sweet to dig this stuff up on drumpf, but he's either refusing subpoenas, using the DoJ as his own personal lawyer suing to stop things from being released, or under investigation... But, spin/deflect/don't answer because as usual, you can't actually defend any of this... Witch hunt! Or is it still her emails? Obama? But Bill...? Look, a squirrel...
        The difference is its proven that the alternative to Trump was peddling her influence.. at this point it's only conjecture that Trump is doing the same.

        Comment


        • He has promised to provide more transparency of his Tax returns and financial affairs before the next election. This is important as it will help dispel all the Fake News !

          Attached Files

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

            The difference is its proven that the alternative to Trump was peddling her influence.. at this point it's only conjecture that Trump is doing the same.
            Proven how? So the worst candidate in history, also the most investigated (found nothing...), but also the most experience, terrible pick. Vs. drumpf...Sounds logical, gotcha…

            Can you bring up some other charts on foundations and the drop off in funds after a politician retires. I just want to know if this is a one off or...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

              The difference is its proven that the alternative to Trump was peddling her influence.. at this point it's only conjecture that Trump is doing the same.
              Please! You darn know well that Trump is under someone's influence. We just don't know who at the moment. The Clinton's were under influence as well and I am not sure if it was conclusively proven who that was either. If it were proven, and if it was against the law, then she would have been indicted and prosecuted. Problem is that there is insufficient evidence to prove it, and therefor no indictment. Its the same with Trump, insufficient evidence - for the moment! But neither of them are saints!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                The difference is its proven that the alternative to Trump was peddling her influence.. at this point it's only conjecture that Trump is doing the same.
                I get that the money raised by the Clinton Foundation was a lot and many were likely looking for access. But it doesn't mean anything more than people who donate large sums to campaigns or start a Superpac to support a candidate. People who want access and influence donate. Are all those candidates bought?
                If you say "proven" that means their should be criminal convictions somewhere. A smoking gun? I am not aware of any.
                Some of the decline in donations was planned. The CF ran the Clinton Global Initiative during that time and spent a lot of effort raising substantial sums for big projects. The plan was to wind it down once much of the money was raised or if Hillary was elected.
                Some large charity rating organizations give the CF some pretty good grades.
                The subject may be slightly different but Trump had a foundation as well. Where he used donations for "charity" to pay for legal costs for his businesses. Raised millions after 9/11 and very little evidence the money was ever used for donations to any cause.



                Comment


                • I love the John Bolton situation. A battle of the egos. "You're fired".
                  "No, I quit".
                  As much as I don't agree with Bolton he was right about one thing. You cannot trust the Taliban. Any deal you make with them will be the same as the deal made with the North Vietnamese. Only good for as long as you stop them from what they want to do. The US wants out of Afghan and it appears it's just a sinkhole of money for a people who don't know what kind of country they want. What's the point? Can you prevent another terrorist attack by being there? Perhaps but you'll have to be there for another 20-30 years.
                  But Trump knew who he was hiring. Bolton's views were not unknown. While they were different than Trump's is good but Bolton never played well with others. Their are plenty in his mold who know how to work in an organization.
                  But I doubt Bolton will go quietly, even with his NDA. He's never been quiet before.
                  Is there any other takeaway other than a White House in chaos? Three national security advisors in 3 years. A revolving door of key positions and few he has hired have impressed. Foreign policy seems muddled at best and rumours have Pompeo looking for the door shortly, maybe to run for Senate.
                  As the chief executive of the country Trump is responsible for this mess and we know the buck doesn't stop anywhere near him. Everything will be somebody else's fault.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pudubny View Post
                    I love the John Bolton situation. A battle of the egos. "You're fired".
                    "No, I quit".
                    As much as I don't agree with Bolton he was right about one thing. You cannot trust the Taliban. Any deal you make with them will be the same as the deal made with the North Vietnamese. Only good for as long as you stop them from what they want to do. The US wants out of Afghan and it appears it's just a sinkhole of money for a people who don't know what kind of country they want. What's the point? Can you prevent another terrorist attack by being there? Perhaps but you'll have to be there for another 20-30 years.
                    But Trump knew who he was hiring. Bolton's views were not unknown. While they were different than Trump's is good but Bolton never played well with others. Their are plenty in his mold who know how to work in an organization.
                    But I doubt Bolton will go quietly, even with his NDA. He's never been quiet before.
                    Is there any other takeaway other than a White House in chaos? Three national security advisors in 3 years. A revolving door of key positions and few he has hired have impressed. Foreign policy seems muddled at best and rumours have Pompeo looking for the door shortly, maybe to run for Senate.
                    As the chief executive of the country Trump is responsible for this mess and we know the buck doesn't stop anywhere near him. Everything will be somebody else's fault.
                    All I'm going to say about this is...the neo-cons are out in full force against Bolton's dismissal... if Shapiro and the likes are upset by this, it must be a good thing. Bolton (and Shapiro) never miss an opportunity to bang the war drum.

                    The only downside to this is less diversity of opinion within Trump's inner circle on foreign policy.

                    Comment


                    • Boss Putin continues to humiliate his toy trump.


                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Capture.PNG Views:	0 Size:	707.6 KB ID:	3035134

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by vermin40 View Post

                        Your posts giggling about natural disasters in areas whose inhabitants may have different political views than yours paint you in a better light?
                        This mischaracterization of what I said is par for the course isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                          All I'm going to say about this is...the neo-cons are out in full force against Bolton's dismissal... if Shapiro and the likes are upset by this, it must be a good thing. Bolton (and Shapiro) never miss an opportunity to bang the war drum.

                          The only downside to this is less diversity of opinion within Trump's inner circle on foreign policy.
                          No downside in Trump's hiring and ability to manage as a chief executive? It's level of success and decisions over decades are highly questionable. The Trump org is/was small. It's scope is quite limited, real estate, branding and hotel management. Seems to me that Trump as a executive has become a bit of a joke. Shouldn't be surprised with the history of his companies. Day by day this job looks beyond his abilities to comprehend or manage. While great at managing his image to his base he spends days in meaningless entanglements over his ego. If he was chief executive of a public company he would have been fired within the first year.
                          What is going well in the admin?
                          ok, the economy is purring along nicely but realistically he has little to do with it. The tax cut boosted corporate profits for a few quarters but the curve looks pretty much like an extension of what was happening in the last two years ObAma was in office. The trade deals could have been renegotiated without a trade "war".
                          Immigration is a mess. Controversy, mismanagement, bad decisions and no legislative proposals. Court challenges for every maneuver he attempts because many are not legal (denying amnesty for example). For all the bluster perhaps 100 miles of the (new) wall may be built before the next election. Even that could be challenged in court.
                          Foreign policy. I think most allies just want to ignore him. Europe is talking about moving forward without US support on several issues. Putin is laughing as Russia moves to the front of the line in foreign influence with China. Why? Well one reason is you just don't know what you'll get with Trump. That kind of uncertainty is bad for alliances. Alliances the US needs for economic reasons as much as security. Syria, Korea, Iran, Ukraine, Iraq? Are any of these situations substantially improved? Not by American efforts. It's a mess, a casual read of major foreign newspapers and foreign policy experts doesn't paint a pretty picture.
                          Domestic. Well the policy seems to be appease the religious right. He got the judges in place and has used the DOJ to fight against LGBT advances. Aside from that, what?
                          Trump being elected stopped the liberal advances that Obama began. While conservatives can be happy about that, I see little positive in much of what Trump has actually done on policy. There is a lot of mismanagement among the few policies he's trying to move forward. He makes it sound like it has to be this way, that's just not true.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                            I get that the money raised by the Clinton Foundation was a lot and many were likely looking for access. But it doesn't mean anything more than people who donate large sums to campaigns or start a Superpac to support a candidate. People who want access and influence donate. Are all those candidates bought?
                            If you say "proven" that means their should be criminal convictions somewhere. A smoking gun? I am not aware of any.
                            Some of the decline in donations was planned. The CF ran the Clinton Global Initiative during that time and spent a lot of effort raising substantial sums for big projects. The plan was to wind it down once much of the money was raised or if Hillary was elected.
                            Some large charity rating organizations give the CF some pretty good grades.
                            The subject may be slightly different but Trump had a foundation as well. Where he used donations for "charity" to pay for legal costs for his businesses. Raised millions after 9/11 and very little evidence the money was ever used for donations to any cause.


                            The problem is the CF continued to accept donations from foreign governments while she was the U.S. top diplomat... something like over 50% of CF donors who donated in excess of 100k were given access to HRC. There probably should be criminal convictions - but, according to Peter Strozk, Clinton and the Obama DOJ struck a deal that blocked FBI access to Clinton Foundation related e-mails found on HRC's private server. Thankfully that investigation was reopened when a whistleblower came forward to the IRS and FBI.

                            and it is slightly different than campaigns - foreign governments can't donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns...in fact they can't donate at all (not sure about laws regarding superpacs and foreign entities).

                            I don't know who was stoned at those charity rating agencies... but in 2014 their total revenues were $177M and they only paid out $5M in grants. Here is the CF 990 form from 2014: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990...201412_990.pdf




                            Now, for the fun part.... many on here act as though conjecture about Trump's involvement in Russia's efforts in 2016 or his subsequent appeasement of Russia is because Russia has dirt on him... when there is no evidence, no indictment against him, or no smoking gun that Trump is working in Russia's favour. Yet you never seem to call them out. Is your standard for what is a smoking gun the same for HRC as it is for DT? Why have you not questioned MFM, BH, Bern, and the likes who promote these conspiracy theories based on conjecture? I really don't care what the CF did in the past, it was 'the bait' I used in order to highlight this double standard. There is as much evidence that the CF sold access and favours to donors as there is that the Russians have something on Trump - NONE... I know it, you know it, and everybody else on here knows it - except those with a severe case of TDS.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                              The problem is the CF continued to accept donations from foreign governments while she was the U.S. top diplomat... something like over 50% of CF donors who donated in excess of 100k were given access to HRC. There probably should be criminal convictions - but, according to Peter Strozk, Clinton and the Obama DOJ struck a deal that blocked FBI access to Clinton Foundation related e-mails found on HRC's private server. Thankfully that investigation was reopened when a whistleblower came forward to the IRS and FBI.

                              and it is slightly different than campaigns - foreign governments can't donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns...in fact they can't donate at all (not sure about laws regarding superpacs and foreign entities).

                              I don't know who was stoned at those charity rating agencies... but in 2014 their total revenues were $177M and they only paid out $5M in grants. Here is the CF 990 form from 2014: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990...201412_990.pdf




                              Now, for the fun part.... many on here act as though conjecture about Trump's involvement in Russia's efforts in 2016 or his subsequent appeasement of Russia is because Russia has dirt on him... when there is no evidence, no indictment against him, or no smoking gun that Trump is working in Russia's favour. Yet you never seem to call them out. Is your standard for what is a smoking gun the same for HRC as it is for DT? Why have you not questioned MFM, BH, Bern, and the likes who promote these conspiracy theories based on conjecture? I really don't care what the CF did in the past, it was 'the bait' I used in order to highlight this double standard. There is as much evidence that the CF sold access and favours to donors as there is that the Russians have something on Trump - NONE... I know it, you know it, and everybody else on here knows it - except those with a severe case of TDS.
                              He obstructed justice but can't be charged while he is President or did you ignore the entire Mueller report? The behaviour of Barr is unprecedented in not remaining objective about Trump and the Trump administration. THE DOJ is not Trump's protector and that behavior is a constitutional crisis. His behavior against our NATO allies is very odd don't you think? How many lies does Trump have to be caught in before you admit there is something very wrong in his behaviour. Remember, he never met with Russians in 2016 yet the number of meetings continues to grow and the web of lies become harder to keep straight. Watergate took a long time too.
                              Last edited by Bern; Sep 10, 2019, 09:08 PM. Reason: Starr to Barr

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

                                The problem is the CF continued to accept donations from foreign governments while she was the U.S. top diplomat... something like over 50% of CF donors who donated in excess of 100k were given access to HRC. There probably should be criminal convictions - but, according to Peter Strozk, Clinton and the Obama DOJ struck a deal that blocked FBI access to Clinton Foundation related e-mails found on HRC's private server. Thankfully that investigation was reopened when a whistleblower came forward to the IRS and FBI.

                                and it is slightly different than campaigns - foreign governments can't donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns...in fact they can't donate at all (not sure about laws regarding superpacs and foreign entities).

                                I don't know who was stoned at those charity rating agencies... but in 2014 their total revenues were $177M and they only paid out $5M in grants. Here is the CF 990 form from 2014: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990...201412_990.pdf




                                Now, for the fun part.... many on here act as though conjecture about Trump's involvement in Russia's efforts in 2016 or his subsequent appeasement of Russia is because Russia has dirt on him... when there is no evidence, no indictment against him, or no smoking gun that Trump is working in Russia's favour. Yet you never seem to call them out. Is your standard for what is a smoking gun the same for HRC as it is for DT? Why have you not questioned MFM, BH, Bern, and the likes who promote these conspiracy theories based on conjecture? I really don't care what the CF did in the past, it was 'the bait' I used in order to highlight this double standard. There is as much evidence that the CF sold access and favours to donors as there is that the Russians have something on Trump - NONE... I know it, you know it, and everybody else on here knows it - except those with a severe case of TDS.
                                You keep forgetting that all the evidence against Trump has yet to come out. The money trail has yet to be fully uncovered. So at the moment, there is 'insufficient' evidence, not 'no' evidence. There will also not be an indictment for anything because he is a sitting president, so lack of indictment does not mean he's innocent. If he were not a sitting president, he certainly would have been indicted for obstruction based on the evidence (11 instances i think) in the mueller report.

                                As i said in my previous post, the Clintons are certianly not saints, but you keep defending Trump as if he were one. All politicians in the US, and likely Canada to some extent, are beholden to the people that put them in power, either through above board or underhanded means.

                                Comment


                                Join The TGN Email List

                                Collapse

                                Recently Joined

                                Collapse

                                Topics: 172,421   Posts: 1,800,942   Members: 46,956   Active Members: 256
                                Welcome to our newest member, Str8downthepipe.

                                Today's Birthdays

                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard

                                Collapse


                                TGN Sponsors

                                Working...
                                X