(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.

Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.

Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

(05-11-2025 12:31 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  whilst waiting on today's baseball game, zongo sheds a tear o' joy...

I remember when the Houston Dynamo were "added" in 2006. They played at Robertson Stadium until Shell Energy Stadium, located on the other side of U.S. Highway 59 from Daikin Park (used to be Minute Maid Park), was built. I once caught a game there at the Rob during the team's inaugural season and I had a lot of fun. The Dynamo won the first of back-to-back MLS Cups that season.

(05-11-2025 11:52 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  A foreign government offers an irresistible gold-plated Trojan horse to a man who has no concern about national security....with 100% conclusion that the 30% moron and 70% money will drag it into the White House.

Now THAT’S funny.

Coming from a cheerleader for the invasion we all just witnessed over the past 4 long, disastrous years of President* autopen.

“National security”, let as many terrorists come strolling on in as can get here.

National security. They found that scoundrel J6 bomber yet?

(05-11-2025 12:42 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Considering the state of the current Air Force One fleet, I'm sure Congress won't have a problem with it. So again, blame Boeing.

I need to start playing soccer video games again.

(05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.

Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.

Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?

“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.

If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?

We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.

This “may” be legal. However it is a bad look for President Trump. I hope he thinks this through and declines the offer.

(05-11-2025 12:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.

Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.

Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?

“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.

If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?

We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.

The bribe is being offered because of the public office he holds… He is personally profiting from the position, while in the position.
If they want to give him a billion dollar plane once he’s out of office then so be it. They’re giving it to him now because he can benefit them now.

How is this even being debated???

(05-11-2025 12:56 PM)No Bull Wrote:  This “may” be legal. However it is a bad look for President Trump. I hope he thinks this through and declines the offer.

Or he accepts the offer to use it as Air Force One, but declines the offer to make it part of his Presidential Library. Let the country use it until the upkeep of the actual fleet is complete. (Trump, by the way, is paying for the upkeep out of his own pocket.)

(05-11-2025 12:57 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.

Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.

Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?

“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.

If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?

We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.

The bribe is being offered because of the public office he holds… He is personally profiting from the position, while in the position.
If they want to give him a billion dollar plane once he’s out of office then so be it. They’re giving it to him now because he can benefit them now.

How is this even being debated???

And like I said, blame Boeing for turning into a crap company.

(05-11-2025 12:42 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Yea, that’s why the loaner is going to the government, then over to the Trump Memorial Asss Kicking Golden Palace Library Foundation

Or, for short the TMAKGPLF, a non-profit property of the U.S. Gov’t.

So, rest easy Crazy’s, at no time will your favorite POTUS personally own this magnificent, beautiful plane.

Loons gon loon, I guess.

(05-11-2025 12:57 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.

Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.

Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?

“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.

If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?

We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.

The bribe is being offered because of the public office he holds… He is personally profiting from the position, while in the position.
If they want to give him a billion dollar plane once he’s out of office then so be it. They’re giving it to him now because he can benefit them now.

How is this even being debated???

The burden is on you to prove all of this.

1. What specific actions has Trump taken to benefit Qatar in the past? If not, provide a hypothetical that demonstrates quid pro quo.

Actually show the evidence and damages that the US would undergo because of this plane deal.

2. Does Trump actually own the plane forever, or will it be used for government travel and then controlled by a third party? Again, you have to show where the corruption comes into play.

And you continue to play dumb and pearl clutch, when representatives continuously steal stock market money via insider trading, use their power to manipulate markets, influence legislation and personal enrichment, etc. Obama and the Clintons became multi millionaires overnight and didn’t create one single product. Why should I even care about this at all if US citizens aren’t impacted?

(05-11-2025 12:56 PM)No Bull Wrote:  This “may” be legal. However it is a bad look for President Trump. I hope he thinks this through and declines the offer.

That's how I feel. So Tanq assumed wrong again, lol.

(05-11-2025 01:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:42 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the response from the Trumpistas on this transaction is 'nothing to see', 'whadabout (something Biden)', and the general 'nothing but TDS' ?

Seriously?

Nothing at all unsavory? Especially with the apparent aim of Trump keeping it after the Presidency?

So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Yea, that’s why the loaner is going to the government, then over to the Trump Memorial Asss Kicking Golden Palace Library Foundation

Or, for short the TMAKGPLF, a non-profit property of the U.S. Gov’t.

So, rest easy Crazy’s, at no time will your favorite POTUS personally own this magnificent, beautiful plane.

Loons gon loon, I guess.

Because its a deferred gift, then it somehow makes the bribe ok?
If they want to present the plane as a gift to the United States, then so be it. If they are giving it as a loaner until Trump can assume control once out of office, then its a bribe.

(05-11-2025 12:56 PM)No Bull Wrote:  This “may” be legal. However it is a bad look for President Trump. I hope he thinks this through and declines the offer.

He’s NOT getting a free plane to go joy riding in. It’s being given to the Fed Govt cause Boeing can’t seem to build planes any longer. Too consumed with pronouns and flags, I guess.

(05-11-2025 01:08 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:57 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:24 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  So why not wait until there is actual conflict of interest/quid pro quo that looks suspicious? I’ll absolutely grant your argument if that eventually happens, but until then…no.

I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.

Quote:Historical context offers that this happens pretty often with other POTUS’. Clinton got a million from Qatar that went to his foundation. Obama received gifts from Saudi Arabia.

During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.

Quote:Was there quid pro quo there? I don’t recall that happening with Obama and Clinton. Could be wrong.

I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?

“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.

If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?

We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.

The bribe is being offered because of the public office he holds… He is personally profiting from the position, while in the position.
If they want to give him a billion dollar plane once he’s out of office then so be it. They’re giving it to him now because he can benefit them now.

How is this even being debated???

The burden is on you to prove all of this.

1. What specific actions has Trump taken to benefit Qatar in the past? If not, provide a hypothetical that demonstrates quid pro quo.

Actually show the evidence and damages that the US would undergo because of this plane deal.

2. Does Trump actually own the plane forever, or will it be used for government travel and then controlled by a third party? Again, you have to show where the corruption comes into play.

And you continue to play dumb and pearl clutch, when representatives continuously steal stock market money via insider trading, use their power to manipulate markets, influence legislation and personal enrichment, etc. Obama and the Clintons became multi millionaires overnight and didn’t create one single product. Why should I even care about this at all if US citizens aren’t impacted?

BS…
The burden is for the President to refuse the gift, and only accept it if its given to the country and not to him. The gift is being offered to the office and not to Trump. Once he’s out of office he is of ZERO benefit to Qatar.

Your TDS is incredible

(05-11-2025 01:19 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 01:08 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:57 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-11-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are okay with Hunter/ Joe then.

I'm not.

And not for the absolute appearance of something ******.

Glad you wish to write it off.


During their Presidency? Nope. Not at all the same.

When Hillary was SoS, and later running -- absolutely disgusting appearance.


I think you are conflating out of office issues with in office issues. And absolutely with in office -- it's crappy. It wholly creates the wrong thing. Additionally with the comments that it would follow Trump and not the office -- even more so.

Can you demonstrate where the quid pro quo lies?

“Bribes” can happen during office, and be delayed in order to not violate the emoluments clause. And I’m not saying that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong, unless there was direct actions that helped the bribing country.

If there is zero harm done from a political standpoint, and the money isn’t hurting taxpayers…why does it matter anyway?

We allow congressional representatives to insider trade and tip the market with impunity and nobody says a word. It’s a joke.

The bribe is being offered because of the public office he holds… He is personally profiting from the position, while in the position.
If they want to give him a billion dollar plane once he’s out of office then so be it. They’re giving it to him now because he can benefit them now.

How is this even being debated???

The burden is on you to prove all of this.

1. What specific actions has Trump taken to benefit Qatar in the past? If not, provide a hypothetical that demonstrates quid pro quo.

Actually show the evidence and damages that the US would undergo because of this plane deal.

2. Does Trump actually own the plane forever, or will it be used for government travel and then controlled by a third party? Again, you have to show where the corruption comes into play.

And you continue to play dumb and pearl clutch, when representatives continuously steal stock market money via insider trading, use their power to manipulate markets, influence legislation and personal enrichment, etc. Obama and the Clintons became multi millionaires overnight and didn’t create one single product. Why should I even care about this at all if US citizens aren’t impacted?

BS…
The burden is for the President to refuse the gift, and only accept it if its given to the country and not to him. The gift is being offered to the office and not to Trump. Once he’s out of office he is of ZERO benefit to Qatar.

Again, you just asserted that it’s a gift to Trump. You still haven’t proven this. It’s going to be used for government use during his presidency, then supposedly to the Trump presidential library. That’s not his plane.

You still have offered nothing of substance. Same whiney platitudes over and over.

(05-11-2025 01:22 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Your TDS is incredible

The crazy thing is I've actually seen people with worse cases of TDS. Hell, one of them was the mother of the woman I was married to.

(05-11-2025 01:22 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Your TDS is incredible

Nope.
Its simply your worship of Trump is blindingly your objectivity.

Again, if Trump accepts the “gift” on behalf of the American people, then so be it. If he accepts it as a personal gift, then its a bribe and a complete conflict of interest.