Law Needing Trump’s approval on merger, T-Mobile execs book rooms at his hotel.

[GSP_37]

Did they also stock the hotel rooms with ho's ready to pee on demand?

Also, I saw yesterday in the local paper a submarine commander was dismissed for hiring 10 Filipino ho's at the same time.

 

[TheComebackKid]

'evening TCK,



aye, that's why i noted that inserting Mr. Obama into this thread is apropos of nothing. while he was POTUS, Mr. Obama didn't have a side financial interest that he was reaping the benefits from.

he has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.

Netflix...

Plus this isn't just about financial interests...it's everything.

but its the truth.

Mrs. Clinton was viewed in horror and distaste by most of the left leaning members of this forum - and many zeroed right in on her apparent conflict on interest issues regarding the Clinton Foundation and, more relevantly, the huge payouts she was receiving for her 30 minute pep talks down on Wall Street.

- IGIT

I disagree. The left defended her even after the election. Sure there were exceptions but the vast majority of democratic posters defended and deflected...even till this very day.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I already stopped arguing this with you.

No you didnt. All you did was repeat your opinion that somehow "Administration" and "Trump" are both different and the same at the same time and ignored my points because what you are saying is epic level stupid. Anything so Orange man bad. You have it bad...perhaps the worst on these boards.

 

[IGIT]

ahoy bobbygeese,

LOLLOLOLOLL

The Clintons received half a million from a Kremlin bank, no problems.

the money from the Russian bank is troublesome, which is why the currently hated Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos), called for an investigation on the matter. its why most of the left leaning posters in the War Room felt a distinct discomfort with Mrs. Clinton - some flat out hated the woman.

so there is no "LOL" going on here.

for reasons unknown to me, some of you are developing amnesia regarding how hated Mrs. Clinton was and how bi-partisan that sentiment was.

Trumps family literally runs a business, liberals feign outrage.

its not feigned - and the liberals on this forum are being pretty consistent.

Political favors don’t get bought for hotel room prices. Just look at anyone in congress’s bank account. Favors cost $$$$$$$

i think there is alot of truth to this, and i don't think multi billion dollar deals swing on where the applicants stay for the night....then again, it can't hurt.

- IGIT

 

[panamaican]

No you didnt. All you did was repeat your opinion that somehow "Administration" and "Trump" are both different and the same at the same time and ignored my points because what you are saying is epic level stupid. Anything so Orange man bad. You have it bad...perhaps the worst on these boards.

I stopped arguing with you to explain what the President's office entails in its entirety.

You were arguing against my point using a completely incorrect understanding of what represents a presidential administration and possibly an incorrect understanding of the scale of the Executive Branch.

I can't argue with you when you don't understand that element of the government at that basic level. The President is Trump, Trump's office, his administration, is the entire Executive Branch of the federal government. There are things that the President directly decides (executive orders, trade negotiations, etc.) and there are things that are delegated to his agencies via his appointees.

 

[IGIT]

hi again TCK,

Netflix...

Plus this isn't just about financial interests...it's everything.

the Obamas signed their deal after he'd left the White House, as a private citizen. i repeat, there is no conflict of interest, or hypocrisy here. you're just adding him into the mix for reasons that i'm still unclear on.

I disagree. The left defended her even after the election. Sure there were exceptions but the vast majority of democratic posters defended and deflected...even till this very day.

its very strange to hear someone tell me what i was saying, lol. the vast majority of Democratic posters on this forum abandoned Mrs. Clinton in the primaries and never came back.

she was accused of being a neocon hawk (by me)

she was accused of being a calculating triangulator (by all Bernie supporters)

she was accused of being absolutely compromised by the massive payouts that Mr. Clinton received for his speeches, money that she later was raking in herself, from everyone except Jack Savage.

i think the problem here is one that many Democrats have; you seem to think that the folks from the "other party" are a monolithic block. they aren't, and i cannot think of more universally disliked politician (pre-Trump) in the War Room than Hillary Clinton.

if i had to post all the attacks Mrs. Clinton endured from the left (here in the War Room), we'd be here for several days.

- IGIT

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I stopped arguing with you to explain what the President's office entails in its entirety.

You stopped arguing to tell me you ignored where I pointed out that the President does not preside over EITHER of the TWO departments that handle it is what you did, again, a second time...soon to be a third...confirmation bias is too great in you. You MUST hold Trump up to a different standard, its the only way to feed your Orange man bad need. No that dissimilar to the idiots that constantly attacked Obama.

And do NOT try to tell me what the Executive branch is or is not, nor what it can or cannot do. You have displayed zero sense you have a grasp of it outside of your having been spoon fed by mass media that Trump is literal Hitler, a literal dictator and all things that happen in government is through him and his order.



At least the Tea Partiers were fun to tear apart because they were genuinely uninformed, this TDS crap though is at Westboro Baptist Church kool-aid drinking cultist levels of bullshit.

 

[TheComebackKid]

hi again TCK,



the Obamas signed their deal after he'd left the White House, as a private citizen. i repeat, there is no conflict of interest, or hypocrisy here. you're just adding him into the mix for reasons that i'm still unclear on.

I agree that you are unclear. I suspect that is on purpose tho.

its very strange to hear someone tell me what i was saying, lol. the vast majority of Democratic posters on this forum abandoned Mrs. Clinton in the primaries and never came back.

she was accused of being a neocon hawk (by me)

she was accused of being a calculating triangulator (by all Bernie supporters)

she was accused of being absolutely compromised by the massive payouts that Mr. Clinton received for his speeches, money that she later was raking in herself, from everyone except Jack Savage.

i think the problem here is one that many Democrats have; you seem to think that the folks from the "other party" are a monolithic block. they aren't, and i cannot think of more universally disliked politician (pre-Trump) in the War Room than Hillary Clinton.

if i had to post all the attacks Mrs. Clinton endured from the left (here in the War Room), we'd be here for several days.

- IGIT

I just disagree igit. That wasn't my experience. I believe some on the left called her out but so many did not. Even to this day most leftist posters losing their minds over Russia still think Trump uniquely corrupt or something. Then when you counter with Hillarys corruption they all laugh and become obtuse. Maybe you're an exception tho...thats good.

 

[IGIT]

heya there TCK,

I agree that you are unclear. I suspect that is on purpose tho.

i'm unclear because the thrust of this thread are conflict of interest issues, whilst in office.

i asked you why you added Mr. Obama into the discussion, and you said, "Netflix".

Mr. Obama signed the deal with Netflix after he left office, so, again, you seem to be mentioning Mr. Obama's name because....why?

lol.

I just disagree igit. That wasn't my experience. I believe some on the left called her out but so many did not. Even to this day most leftist posters losing their minds over Russia still think Trump uniquely corrupt or something. Then when you counter with Hillarys corruption they all laugh and become obtuse. Maybe you're an exception tho...thats good.

no one laughs, as far as i know, if you are deploying whataboutism on conflict of interest for Mrs. Clinton. if someone was defending Mrs. Clinton in an energetic fashion, then it was Jack Savage you were speaking to.

as mighty as he is, he's just one man, my friend. just about every other poster here on the left thought she was beneath contempt and completely compromised.

let me put it this way...ask youself, "how popular was Mr. Sanders among the left here in the War Room back in 2016?"

if you're honest with yourself, you'd say he was very, very popular.

well, just about everyone who favored Bernie thought Hillary was just plain awful - and many of those people cited the Clinton Foundation along with her Wall Street speeches. and that's the way it was.

its not my fault you encountered Jack and his, at times, acerbic posting style.

- IGIT

 

[TheComebackKid]

heya there TCK,



i'm unclear because the thrust of this thread are conflict of interest issues, whilst in office.

i asked you why you added Mr. Obama into the discussion, and you said, "Netflix".

Mr. Obama signed the deal with Netflix after he left office, so, again, you seem to be mentioning Mr. Obama's name because....why?

lol.

I didn't know we were talking solely about conflicts of interest while in office. I thought we were talking about all around corruption and scumbaggery in and around office.

no one laughs, as far as i know, if you are deploying whataboutism on conflict of interest for Mrs. Clinton. if someone was defending Mrs. Clinton in an energetic fashion, then it was Jack Savage you were speaking to.

as mighty as he is, he's just one man, my friend. just about every other poster here on the left thought she was beneath contempt and completely compromised.

let me put it this way...ask youself, "how popular was Mr. Sanders among the left here in the War Room back in 2016?"

if you're honest with yourself, you'd say he was very, very popular.

well, just about everyone who favored Bernie thought Hillary was just plain awful - and many of those people cited the Clinton Foundation along with her Wall Street speeches. and that's the way it was.

its not my fault you encountered Jack and his, at times, acerbic posting style.

- IGIT

Yeah man that was the exact opposite of my experience during and since the election. Leftists here still defend the email scandal.

 

[jrams]

Pay to play is bad regardless if it is left vs right. T-Mobile should be investigated to see if there is anything inappropriate in their stays there.

First, as contemptible as it is for other reasons, neither Clinton nor Obama were giving big money speeches while serving AS PRESIDENT of the the USA. And any donations from nations or individuals attempting to buy influence with Clinton through the Clinton Foundation were not, by legal definition, personally enriching Clinton.

This is weak. Clinton was secretary of state and gearing up for two presidential runs while taking donations from foreign agents.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Netflix...

Plus this isn't just about financial interests...it's everything.



I disagree. The left defended her even after the election. Sure there were exceptions but the vast majority of democratic posters defended and deflected...even till this very day.

You really need to spot the difference between defending someone against false and hysterical attacks and supporting said person.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You really need to spot the difference between defending someone against false and hysterical attacks and supporting said person.

Projection

 

[hillelslovak87]

Projection

You literally just made the error. Sweet moonlight!!

 

[IGIT]

hi again TCK,

I didn't know we were talking solely about conflicts of interest while in office. I thought we were talking about all around corruption and scumbaggery in and around office.

Mr. Obama's Netflix deal has nothing to do with that. even out of office, its not corruption, anymore than it is for an ex-POTUS to sign a huge book deal.

if you wanted to mention Mr. Obama purely because you thought he was a scumbag, that's fine, it just was unrelated to the OP.

Yeah man that was the exact opposite of my experience during and since the election. Leftists here still defend the email scandal.

what do the emails have to do with conflict of interest issues for sitting politicians? its so off topic, man.

you were on point when talking about Mrs. Clinton's speech money from Wall Street - but then, most of the leftists on this forum already beat you to that, as she was pilloried on this forum for that very thing in 2016.

if you're point in mentioning both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was, "hey, they are scumbags too!", i get it, but it also seems to have very little to do with the OP.

- IGIT

 

[TheComebackKid]

hi again TCK,



Mr. Obama's Netflix deal has nothing to do with that. even out of office, its not corruption, anymore than it is for an ex-POTUS to sign a huge book deal.

if you wanted to mention Mr. Obama purely because you thought he was a scumbag, that's fine, it just was unrelated to the OP.



what do the emails have to do with conflict of interest issues for sitting politicians? its so off topic, man.

if you're point in mentioning both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was, "hey, they are scumbags too!", i get it, but it also seems to have very little to do with the OP.

- IGIT

You're the only one who is confused here igit. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[IGIT]

You're the only one who is confused here igit. I don't know what else to tell you.

hi TheComebackKid,

how is Mr. Obama's Netflix deal a sign of scumbaggery or corruption?

explain it to me, if you don't mind. i'm not asking in a smug way, i'm honestly curious how you couple any of that to the OP.

- IGIT

 

[ultramanhyata]

This is weak. Clinton was secretary of state and gearing up for two presidential runs while taking donations from foreign agents.

Do you understand the difference between self-enrichment and personal charity enrichment?

Unless you have evidence that Clinton was somehow funneling Foundation money into her personal bank account. I certainly think her capable of such a thing. But I want to see that evidence.

 

[TheComebackKid]

hi TheComebackKid,

how is Mr. Obama's Netflix deal a sign of scumbaggery or corruption?

explain it to me, if you don't mind. i'm not asking in a smug way, i'm honestly curious how you couple any of that to the OP.

- IGIT

Every answer I give you seems to only confuse you more. I don't want to keep adding to it. We can agree to disagree on whatever it is we're talking about at this point.

 

[IGIT]

Do you understand the difference between self-enrichment and personal charity enrichment?

Unless you have evidence that Clinton was somehow funneling Foundation money into her personal bank account. I certainly think her capable of such a thing. But I want to see that evidence.

hello there ultramanhyata,

don't you think that its not a coincidence that most of Mr. Clinton's most handsomely compensated speeches occurred after Mrs. Clinton announced her run for POTUS?

doesn't it seem possible that entities making those big donations to the Clinton Foundation did so with the understanding or, at worst, hope, that they'd receive favorable legislation via a Clinton Presidency?

wasn't it politically moronic to have that kind of aroma wafting around her as Mrs. Clinton assumed the mantle of frontrunner for the Democratic Party?

what's your take on this, my friend?

- IGIT