(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not on the "Trump is a racist" train. With that said... this story isn't especially strong proof that he is NOT a racist IMO.

Well, you are on a train with a bunch of people who fervently believe he is, and cite that as one of the reasons to impeach. But glad to hear you personally do not think he is a racist.

The salient part of that interview to me is that Carson, as a doctor, hesitated to send children back to East Baltimore.

There are poor people who live in terrible conditions all over the USA. Inner city, rural, white people, brown people...

Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

Thought you were not on that train. Damn. I believed you for a moment.

But that is a good example of the "Guilty until exonerated" philosophy that has supplanted "Innocent until proven guilty" among America's left, and certain foreign countries.

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are poor people who live in terrible conditions all over the USA. Inner city, rural, white people, brown people...

Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

It's very difficult to prove a negative. But you know that.

Agree. I never asked him to prove that Trump isn't racist. He was the one that posted a story and implied that it provided strength to the argument that Trump isn't racist.

Double axle spinning backflip! I didn't even know the human body could do that!

(07-30-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, you are on a train with a bunch of people who fervently believe he is, and cite that as one of the reasons to impeach. But glad to hear you personally do not think he is a racist.

The salient part of that interview to me is that Carson, as a doctor, hesitated to send children back to East Baltimore.

There are poor people who live in terrible conditions all over the USA. Inner city, rural, white people, brown people...

Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

It is compelling evidence of, at the least, a double standard in using the word 'infested' as proof of racism; and further, decent proof that the terminology 'infested' is not racist in the slightest especially given the context that he (Carson) was referring specifically to Baltimore.

But your side is jumping up and down like irate chimps at the zoo during feeding time over that terminology, isnt it?

That Ben Carson came in to support his guy doesn't really sway me in either direction here.

(07-30-2019 10:57 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

It's very difficult to prove a negative. But you know that.

Agree. I never asked him to prove that Trump isn't racist. He was the one that posted a story and implied that it provided strength to the argument that Trump isn't racist.

Double axle spinning backflip! I didn't even know the human body could do that!

If you say so.

(07-30-2019 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are poor people who live in terrible conditions all over the USA. Inner city, rural, white people, brown people...

Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

It is compelling evidence of, at the least, a double standard in using the word 'infested' as proof of racism; and further, decent proof that the terminology 'infested' is not racist in the slightest especially given the context that he (Carson) was referring specifically to Baltimore.

But your side is jumping up and down like irate chimps at the zoo during feeding time over that terminology, isnt it?

That Ben Carson came in to support his guy doesn't really sway me in either direction here.

Whether Ben Carson came on to 'support his guy' is absolutely immaterial to the first point above. Funny that.

And fairly immaterial to the second as well.

Awesome 100% non-sequitor response there. Good for you.

(07-30-2019 11:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

It is compelling evidence of, at the least, a double standard in using the word 'infested' as proof of racism; and further, decent proof that the terminology 'infested' is not racist in the slightest especially given the context that he (Carson) was referring specifically to Baltimore.

But your side is jumping up and down like irate chimps at the zoo during feeding time over that terminology, isnt it?

That Ben Carson came in to support his guy doesn't really sway me in either direction here.

Whether Ben Carson came on to 'support his guy' is absolutely immaterial to the first point above. Funny that.

And fairly immaterial to the second as well.

Awesome 100% non-sequitor response there. Good for you.

I find it quite material to the point as to whether Carson's supportive statements provide "decent proof that the terminology 'infested' is not racist in the slightest".

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Let me just run this speech by this foreign government where I just happen to have business interests. Cool cool.

He has business interests all over the world. About any foreigner he talks to will be from a country where Trump has business interests.

He consulted with foreign leaders before a speech on energy policy that directly affects their countries. Much of the article is about what he didn't do: he left out most of the suggested language.

What's the story here?

A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

Hate to tell you, lad, in the real world senior position holders very often work together with junior position holders. You seem to think that Trump doesnt understand it, or sends out an exclusive message of complete 'go it alone-ism'.

Nice try though.

(07-30-2019 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  He has business interests all over the world. About any foreigner he talks to will be from a country where Trump has business interests.

He consulted with foreign leaders before a speech on energy policy that directly affects their countries. Much of the article is about what he didn't do: he left out most of the suggested language.

What's the story here?

A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

Hate to tell you, lad, in the real world senior position holders very often work together with junior position holders. You seem to think that Trump doesnt understand it, or sends out an exclusive message of complete 'go it alone-ism'.

Nice try though.

This response makes zero sense in response to either comment.

Nice try though.

(07-30-2019 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  He has business interests all over the world. About any foreigner he talks to will be from a country where Trump has business interests.

He consulted with foreign leaders before a speech on energy policy that directly affects their countries. Much of the article is about what he didn't do: he left out most of the suggested language.

What's the story here?

A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

Hate to tell you, lad, in the real world senior position holders very often work together with junior position holders. You seem to think that Trump doesnt understand it, or sends out an exclusive message of complete 'go it alone-ism'.

Nice try though.

Please keep telling us it is only the leftists who are smug and condescending.

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Let me just run this speech by this foreign government where I just happen to have business interests. Cool cool.

He has business interests all over the world. About any foreigner he talks to will be from a country where Trump has business interests.

He consulted with foreign leaders before a speech on energy policy that directly affects their countries. Much of the article is about what he didn't do: he left out most of the suggested language.

What's the story here?

A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

In feudal monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, there's no clear distinction between government officials and private citizens, and the the government and private business of shieks and emirs blurs and overlaps. The decisionmakers and policy makers are private citizens, and government officials tend to be functionaries. As for US private citizens being intermediaries, that's nothing new at all, especially in matters of trade and economics. Google "Armond Hammer" for example (don't freak out over his connections to Al Gore, or Al Gore's business interests in coal).

I have no issue with Trump's foreign policy being more nuanced and sophisticated than his campaign slogans. I often can't avoid the suspicion that his opponents are actually disappointed that he isn't the jingoistic warmonger they made him out to be.

(07-30-2019 11:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:07 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  He has business interests all over the world. About any foreigner he talks to will be from a country where Trump has business interests.

He consulted with foreign leaders before a speech on energy policy that directly affects their countries. Much of the article is about what he didn't do: he left out most of the suggested language.

What's the story here?

A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

In feudal monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, there's no clear distinction between government officials and private citizens, and the the government and private business of shieks and emirs blurs and overlaps. The decisionmakers and policy makers are private citizens, and government officials tend to be functionaries. As for US private citizens being intermediaries, that's nothing new at all, especially in matters of trade and economics. Google "Armond Hammer" for example (don't freak out over his connections to Al Gore, or Al Gore's business interests in coal).

I have no issue with Trump's foreign policy being more nuanced and sophisticated than his campaign slogans. I often can't avoid the suspicion that his opponents are actually disappointed that he isn't the jingoistic warmonger they made him out to be.

Yes, using the insight and knowledge of private citizens is normal. But regardless of how normal it is, the problem with using them as intermediaries, is that we don't know where their interests lie. Conflicts of interest are real, and we have legal measures to keep government officials from abusing their power and position for personal gain (and we could use more, actually).

Case in point, Barrack is being investigated by federal prosecutors for illegal foreign lobbying.

Quote:President Donald Trump’s inauguration chairman, Tom Barrack, lobbied the new administration to share nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia while, at the same time, making plans to team up with the Saudis to buy a company that would benefit from the policy change, according to documents obtained by a House committee.

If your argument is that this is nothing new, your argument is that you're OK with graft and corruption.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump...lear-deal#

(07-30-2019 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

In feudal monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, there's no clear distinction between government officials and private citizens, and the the government and private business of shieks and emirs blurs and overlaps. The decisionmakers and policy makers are private citizens, and government officials tend to be functionaries. As for US private citizens being intermediaries, that's nothing new at all, especially in matters of trade and economics. Google "Armond Hammer" for example (don't freak out over his connections to Al Gore, or Al Gore's business interests in coal).

I have no issue with Trump's foreign policy being more nuanced and sophisticated than his campaign slogans. I often can't avoid the suspicion that his opponents are actually disappointed that he isn't the jingoistic warmonger they made him out to be.

Yes, using the insight and knowledge of private citizens is normal. But regardless of how normal it is, the problem with using them as intermediaries, is that we don't know where their interests lie. Conflicts of interest are real, and we have legal measures to keep government officials from abusing their power and position for personal gain (and we could use more, actually).

Case in point, Barrack is being investigated by federal prosecutors for illegal foreign lobbying.

Quote:President Donald Trump’s inauguration chairman, Tom Barrack, lobbied the new administration to share nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia while, at the same time, making plans to team up with the Saudis to buy a company that would benefit from the policy change, according to documents obtained by a House committee.

If your argument is that this is nothing new, your argument is that you're OK with graft and corruption.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump...lear-deal#

I didn't say I was ok with graft and corruption. I said that using private citizens as intermediaries is nothing new.

If Barrack is guilty of graft, then he's guilty of graft. Lock him up.

Remember this?

Solyndra

Lines all blurred between lobbyists and government officials; investors with direct ties to DOE officials, all the same sort of thing going on. And the Solyndra affair didn't even start with Obama; but with Bush. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that the media and the Democrats have been ok with it for decades - until now.

(07-30-2019 12:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Remember this?

Solyndra

Lines all blurred between lobbyists and government officials; investors with direct ties to DOE officials, all the same sort of thing going on. And the Solyndra affair didn't even start with Obama; but with Bush. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that the media and the Democrats have been ok with it for decades - until now.

The media has been OK with for decades.

Posts article from mainstream media outlet reporting on the exact issue that apparently the media has been OK with...

(07-30-2019 11:00 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are poor people who live in terrible conditions all over the USA. Inner city, rural, white people, brown people...

Yep, and I am sure Carson would have hesitated to send any child back to substandard conditions anywhere.

BUT:

Carson was in Baltimore, and the brouhaha is about Baltimore. He was not in Wyoming or El Paso, and the controversy is not in West Virginia. Not even a good try at a deflection.

Still not a compelling argument for Trump not being a racist.

It is compelling evidence of, at the least, a double standard in using the word 'infested' as proof of racism; and further, decent proof that the terminology 'infested' is not racist in the slightest especially given the context that he (Carson) was referring specifically to Baltimore.

But your side is jumping up and down like irate chimps at the zoo during feeding time over that terminology, isnt it?

That Ben Carson came in to support his guy doesn't really sway me in either direction here.

Understood. Just like the Democratic team attacks on Trump don't impress me.

(07-30-2019 12:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

In feudal monarchies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, there's no clear distinction between government officials and private citizens, and the the government and private business of shieks and emirs blurs and overlaps. The decisionmakers and policy makers are private citizens, and government officials tend to be functionaries. As for US private citizens being intermediaries, that's nothing new at all, especially in matters of trade and economics. Google "Armond Hammer" for example (don't freak out over his connections to Al Gore, or Al Gore's business interests in coal).

I have no issue with Trump's foreign policy being more nuanced and sophisticated than his campaign slogans. I often can't avoid the suspicion that his opponents are actually disappointed that he isn't the jingoistic warmonger they made him out to be.

Yes, using the insight and knowledge of private citizens is normal. But regardless of how normal it is, the problem with using them as intermediaries, is that we don't know where their interests lie. Conflicts of interest are real, and we have legal measures to keep government officials from abusing their power and position for personal gain (and we could use more, actually).

Case in point, Barrack is being investigated by federal prosecutors for illegal foreign lobbying.

Quote:President Donald Trump’s inauguration chairman, Tom Barrack, lobbied the new administration to share nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia while, at the same time, making plans to team up with the Saudis to buy a company that would benefit from the policy change, according to documents obtained by a House committee.

If your argument is that this is nothing new, your argument is that you're OK with graft and corruption.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump...lear-deal#

I didn't say I was ok with graft and corruption. I said that using private citizens as intermediaries is nothing new.

If Barrack is guilty of graft, then he's guilty of graft. Lock him up.

So if your argument was solely that this wasn't new, why even bring that point up? I wasn't saying that this has never happened before.

I brought up that the issue I had was connected to the potential conflict of interests that arise when operating like that, which is why just sharing the speech was newsworthy. Turns out, there was more to the story, and a federal investigation is underway.

(07-30-2019 12:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Remember this?

Solyndra

Lines all blurred between lobbyists and government officials; investors with direct ties to DOE officials, all the same sort of thing going on. And the Solyndra affair didn't even start with Obama; but with Bush. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that the media and the Democrats have been ok with it for decades - until now.

Never heard of it..... lolz....

Frizz, you *do* know I was a *very* early employee there, right?

(07-30-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

Hate to tell you, lad, in the real world senior position holders very often work together with junior position holders. You seem to think that Trump doesnt understand it, or sends out an exclusive message of complete 'go it alone-ism'.

Nice try though.

This response makes zero sense in response to either comment.

Nice try though.

Your original comment says 'well gee golly whiz Trump *only* considered America first *and* go it alone (i.e. only dictating to others.)'

Read it. Then consider what you overlooked in your county-wide broad brush statement.

(07-30-2019 11:20 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 11:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A private businessman in the UAE was given access to a foreign policy speech prior to it being given (thus potentially giving him insider information).

Also, it's a bit ironic that a foreign government was then allowed to review and edit a policy speech that was intended to be about putting America first.

Cooperating with foreign governments - and yes, even sharing information with them - is not inconsistent with putting America first.

Trump's whole campaign was based on the idea of America dictating the terms and not asking for other's opinions on matters. It's ironic, and not that hard to admit it's ironic, especially given how Trump talks.

I have more issue with using private citizens, who likely have vested business interests, as intermediaries. The guy Barrack gave the speech to had access to information that could be used for personal gain, because what POTUS says matters and can move markets.

Hate to tell you, lad, in the real world senior position holders very often work together with junior position holders. You seem to think that Trump doesnt understand it, or sends out an exclusive message of complete 'go it alone-ism'.

Nice try though.

Please keep telling us it is only the leftists who are smug and condescending.

Not my fault lad forgot a complete aspect in his earnestness to broad-brush 'everything about Trump == dictating to others at all points forever and ever and ever'.

(07-30-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-30-2019 12:38 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Remember this?

Solyndra

Lines all blurred between lobbyists and government officials; investors with direct ties to DOE officials, all the same sort of thing going on. And the Solyndra affair didn't even start with Obama; but with Bush. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that the media and the Democrats have been ok with it for decades - until now.

The media has been OK with for decades.

Posts article from mainstream media outlet reporting on the exact issue that apparently the media has been OK with...

Keep on dancin', make me spell it out for you...

Nothing in WaPo or anywhere but Fox and conservative rags calling out for Obama's resignation, pointing out his unfitness for office, etc...

Can you provide the link to Cummings' demand for an investigation into Obama's dealings, or his impeachment?

The topic of this conversation for me isn't corruption, it's hypocrisy and double standards.

You are so shocked, shocked by what you read about Trump, but the same stuff doesn't stop you from voting for Blue Team.