(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I dunno, but I'm not going to assume it wasn't.

And that's the million dollar answer as to why we need to totally take away these potential conflicts. So we don't have to assume anything and we just know that nothing untoward it taking place. That's what we should be demanding of our government employees, right?

Who knows? Lots of more important things to worry about than what Ivanka is trying to sell in China. Need to prioritize, my friend, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

I get that you are referring to one specific example, but we have seen politicians and friends/family of politicians enrich themselves due to access to their elected office. I hate all of that and would love to see these ******** charged with crimes for doing so. Unfortunately, there is no oversight committee that can do this effectively. That's because at a minimum a large minority of our elected officials are gaming the system and their friends and families ARE being enriched. Sometimes the politicians are brought to justice. The majority of times the politicians not only gotten away with it, but they did so in such blatant ways. And their political parties would give them cover to help them get away with it - all to preserve those majorities.

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

Both of which are irrelevant points, because the impact of the CF is not money but power.

Do you really, seriously believe that as president she would not have been able to dispense favors to donors who made large contributions to the CF? Do you really, seriously believe that she would not have done so?

In her position, it's about power, not money. Enough power and the money will come. And the CF is a huge factor in leveraging that power.

(04-18-2017 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:22 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Needless to say... this is one of those fail threads.

Then don't partake.

I did... until you referred to Ivanka as a political leader...

(04-18-2017 09:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I get that you are referring to one specific example, but we have seen politicians and friends/family of politicians enrich themselves due to access to their elected office. I hate all of that and would love to see these ******** charged with crimes for doing so. Unfortunately, there is no oversight committee that can do this effectively. That's because at a minimum a large minority of our elected officials are gaming the system and their friends and families ARE being enriched. Sometimes the politicians are brought to justice. The majority of times the politicians not only gotten away with it, but they did so in such blatant ways. And their political parties would give them cover to help them get away with it - all to preserve those majorities.

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And that's the million dollar answer as to why we need to totally take away these potential conflicts. So we don't have to assume anything and we just know that nothing untoward it taking place. That's what we should be demanding of our government employees, right?

Who knows? Lots of more important things to worry about than what Ivanka is trying to sell in China. Need to prioritize, my friend, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

You don't have to take a salary from your charity to still become rich off of political contacts that ultimately benefit the charity.

Chelsea was going to take a major role in the CF and it would have looked no different than Trump with Ivanka. Trump also divested himself from the day to day. Most likely it's only on paper. Clintons would be no different.

(04-18-2017 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

Both of which are irrelevant points, because the impact of the CF is not money but power.

Do you really, seriously believe that as president she would not have been able to dispense favors to donors who made large contributions to the CF? Do you really, seriously believe that she would not have done so?

In her position, it's about power, not money. Enough power and the money will come. And the CF is a huge factor in leveraging that power.

She probably would have. But again, she does not draw a salary from the CF and they do a lot of good charitable work across the globe.

But yes, she's a politician. And like Trump, they're always about their friends first and country second.

(04-18-2017 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For Ivanka.

At what point do the conservatives stand up against this stuff? Maybe ponder what you would say if this was Chelsea?

Quote:SHANGHAI (AP) — On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mixes with business

Or was this all just a coincidence?

Just think if she had her own line of missle guidance systems.

(04-18-2017 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For Ivanka.
At what point do the conservatives stand up against this stuff? Maybe ponder what you would say if this was Chelsea?

Quote:SHANGHAI (AP) — On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mixes with business
Or was this all just a coincidence?

I will say the same thing that I would say if it were Chelsea. Nothing.

Like it or not, this kind of thing is going to happen. It does not imply any sort of quid pro quo. It's just what happens. You get to meet people, and things happen.

There's nothing nefarious about this, or about the Clinton Foundation. But pretending that the CF doesn't mean anything because Hilldawg doesn't take a salary from them is absurd.

At this level, it's more about power than money. If you have the power, the money will follow. We're not going to change that.

(04-18-2017 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For Ivanka.
At what point do the conservatives stand up against this stuff? Maybe ponder what you would say if this was Chelsea?

Quote:SHANGHAI (AP) — On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mixes with business
Or was this all just a coincidence?

I will say the same thing that I would say if it were Chelsea. Nothing.

Like it or not, this kind of thing is going to happen. It does not imply any sort of quid pro quo. It's just what happens.

So, if this were Chelsea, you don't think the house Republicans would be considering an investigation?

(04-18-2017 10:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For Ivanka.
At what point do the conservatives stand up against this stuff? Maybe ponder what you would say if this was Chelsea?

Quote:SHANGHAI (AP) — On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mixes with business
Or was this all just a coincidence?

I will say the same thing that I would say if it were Chelsea. Nothing.
Like it or not, this kind of thing is going to happen. It does not imply any sort of quid pro quo. It's just what happens.

So, if this were Chelsea, you don't think the house Republicans would be considering an investigation?

You'll have to ask a house republican. Or at least a republican. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Actually, if we traded purses and similar baubles for China taking a hard stance with N. Korea's fatboy, I'm good.

(04-18-2017 10:03 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, if we traded purses and similar baubles for China taking a hard stance with N. Korea's fatboy, I'm good.

Absolutely. That's a huge win.

...cannot laugh any harder

(04-18-2017 08:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For Ivanka.

At what point do the conservatives stand up against this stuff? Maybe ponder what you would say if this was Chelsea?

Quote:SHANGHAI (AP) — On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mixes with business

Or was this all just a coincidence?

I dunno, but I'm not going to assume it wasn't.

And that's the million dollar answer as to why we need to totally take away these potential conflicts. So we don't have to assume anything and we just know that nothing untoward it taking place. That's what we should be demanding of our government employees, right?

Like we did over the last 8 years?

(04-18-2017 09:53 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:22 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  Needless to say... this is one of those fail threads.

Then don't partake.

I did... until you referred to Ivanka as a political leader...

OUCH at that gif but spot on.

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 08:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And that's the million dollar answer as to why we need to totally take away these potential conflicts. So we don't have to assume anything and we just know that nothing untoward it taking place. That's what we should be demanding of our government employees, right?

Who knows? Lots of more important things to worry about than what Ivanka is trying to sell in China. Need to prioritize, my friend, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

and while she was SOS?

(04-18-2017 10:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, if this were Chelsea, you don't think the house Republicans would be considering an investigation?

I simply don't understand why you'd compare yourself to something stupid and think that somehow legitimizes what you're doing or makes you look any smarter.

Hell yes, Bill and Hillary Clinton are FAR wealthier (and Hillary and Chelsea far more powerful/influential) because of Bill having been elected President than they would have been otherwise. Can say that about likely every single person and their families ever elected to the office.

The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

This seems an awful lot like the Russia thing, where the left complains simultaneously that Trump is in their pockets/at their behest AND 'risking WWIII' by challenging them.

(04-18-2017 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:17 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 09:02 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Who knows? Lots of more important things to worry about than what Ivanka is trying to sell in China. Need to prioritize, my friend, and don't sweat the small stuff.

Not sweating anything...but I don't want my political leaders enriching themselves from foreign countries while in office because it's just wrong. That's why it's in the Constitution.

I believe you were in her camp this past election cycle.

Nope. I was a Bernie supporter.

And FWIW - If you're going the CF route, she takes no salary from the CF and had agreed to totally remove herself from it had she won.

and while she was SOS?

I believe she was still on their board in some capacity, but she was not taking a salary. I could be wrong.

(04-18-2017 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The 'violation' only comes if China is getting something in exchange for it...

I don't believe that is true.

If Ivanka is getting this patent deal solely because she has the ear of the president, that is most likely a violation of the emoluments clause.

The safest bet is just not to play. That's why you divest or don't take the job. This whole administration is a walking ethical nightmare.