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

[ultramanhyata]

I believe the way the Clinton Foundation operates was a problem if she wanted to become president. I’m unaware of an Obama foundation or what it’s doing. Speeches to major banks is disturbing for both parties and I wanted to see Clinton’s transcripts. But I can also chew gum and walk at the same time. I can look at those problems and want them fixed and also look at this situation and see it’s also corrupted.

Let's also realize it's Trump supporters displaying the breathtaking hypocrisy and double-standard here.

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.

Trump, on the other hand, given his real estate holdings, is being personally enriched, while sitting in the Oval Office, by nations and individuals attempting to curry favor and buy influence.

It is apples and orangutans.

 

[IGIT]

ahoy TheComebackKid,

The point was that it's hard to take you guys serious given the hypocrisy.

you inserted President Obama into the conversation, apropos of nothing. i just wanted to point that out.

No they didn't lol

that's ridiculous, revisionist history. Anuung Un Rama, Viva, just about every Sanders supporter (which would be almost every lefty on this forum) thought Mrs. Clinton was compromised by her Wall Street speeches and the amorphous nature of the Clinton Foundation.

there was exactly one booster, if you want to use that term, for Mrs. Clinton; Jack Savage. that's it.

you're not posting in the comments section for Huffpo, lol. Mrs. Clinton was in very bad odor with the Democrats on this particular board.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Which brings us back to the point I already made. People who care about potential malfeasance through the office will see this as it is. People who don't care about that will not be swayed by another example of something they don't care about.

hi ho Pan,

there is a third group, though, that cares about things sometimes, but then doesn't care about them at other times.

like that group (they were legion) of Americans who believed that the deficit was the biggest crises confronting this nation. 84% of Republicans believed this was the case in 2012. http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/14/debt-and-deficit-a-public-opinion-dilemma/

where do you think those folks are now? did they all die or something, or did deficit issues become magically resolved in 2016?

- IGIT

 

[TheComebackKid]

ahoy TheComebackKid,



you inserted President Obama into the conversation, apropos of nothing. i just wanted to point that out.

I used him to point out hypocrisy.

that's ridiculous, revisionist history. Anuung Un Rama, Viva, just about every Sanders supporter (which would be almost every lefty on this forum) thought Mrs. Clinton was compromised by her Wall Street speeches and the amorphous nature of the Clinton Foundation.

there was exactly one booster, if you want to use that term, for Mrs. Clinton; Jack Savage. that's it.

you're not posting in the comments section for Huffpo, lol. Mrs. Clinton was in very bad odor with the Democrats on this particular board.

- IGIT

That was not my experience igit

 

[panamaican]

hi ho Pan,

there is a third group, though, that cares about things sometimes, but then doesn't care about them at other times.

like that group (they were legion) of Americans who believed that the deficit was the biggest crises confronting this nation. 84% of Republicans believed this was the case in 2012. http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/14/debt-and-deficit-a-public-opinion-dilemma/

where do you think those folks are now? did they all die or something, or did deficit issues become magically resolved in 2016?

- IGIT

Don't say that.

It's almost as if you're suggesting that people who complained about donations to the Clinton's foundation as possible pay-for-play should also be complaining about this...

 

[JonesBones]

Not fully forgetting them, just dismissing them. Their coverage is horrible in the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Northern Illinois) outside of the major cities. Even towns of 20-50k have no service, not just deadzones. I don't think I could name a single person with at&t that I know. Most have Verizon, others have sprint or T mobile or even US Cellular for more affordable phone plans. AT&T is unusable

Although their coverage must be adequate on the coasts, or maybe just hanging strong in major cities to have same number of customers as Verizon nationwide?

I use T Mobile but I see smartphone screenshots all the time with AT@T service. AT@T is massive. They are taking on Netflix in streaming too.

 

[panamaican]

Weighing in.

Needing Trump’s approval on merger

Not the same. Thanks for playing the confirmation bias game.

Are you really this stupid? The quote from the OP is:

...its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

 

[Shoemaker]

Not fully forgetting them, just dismissing them. Their coverage is horrible in the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Northern Illinois) outside of the major cities. Even towns of 20-50k have no service, not just deadzones. I don't think I could name a single person with at&t that I know. Most have Verizon, others have sprint or T mobile or even US Cellular for more affordable phone plans. AT&T is unusable

Although their coverage must be adequate on the coasts, or maybe just hanging strong in major cities to have same number of customers as Verizon nationwide?

AT&T has always been weird for me. I've always had great service anywhere that I live. But the second I step outside, everything goes pear-shaped. The only exception was when I was in Oakland. Almost always had great service there.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Are you really this stupid? The quote from the OP is:

...its deal needed approval from the Trump administration.

Are you really this stupid? the title of the actual thread is

Needing Trump’s approval on merger...

Your actual post I quoted states

It's just another example of potential self-enrichment via the office.

Followed by a rant about those denying TRUMPS malfeasance.

I think you are in need of this for your advice.

 

[ElKarlo]

He wants to return to the Gilded Age of robber barons and rampant plutocracy.

Seems that is how he operates. I mean it's kinda clear. As least other politicians mask their corruption a bit more

 

[panamaican]

Are you really this stupid? the title of the actual thread is

Needing Trump’s approval on merger...

Your actual post I quoted states

It's just another example of potential self-enrichment via the office.

Followed by a rant about those denying TRUMPS malfeasance.

I think you are in need of this for your advice.

Oh, I didn't realize that you don't read actual links before staying stupid things. You just read thread titles? That is your defense for being wrong? It's not a good one.

And yes "via the office" because the office is what gives him the position to influence the decisions of those individuals who he appoints.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Oh, I didn't realize that you don't read actual links before staying stupid things. You just read thread titles? That is your defense for being wrong? It's not a good one.

And yes "via the office" because the office is what gives him the position to influence the decisions of those individuals who he appoints.

Oh, I didnt realize you reply using quotes but toss out whats in those quotes to form an argument. Great posting method...

And no, you dont get to say "Administration" while also using "Individual" as an argument especially since you will not let the news past your confirmation bias that Trump does not control the two bodies that have to approve it...with one of those bodies having DEMOCRATS ON IT.

Uses confirmation bias, doesnt seem to care what is in quotes being replied to as long as orange man bad makes sense.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Dude couldn't use that hotel to cater that natty champs dinner?

cmon bruh

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/goldman-sachs-paid-hillary-675000-for-this/

 

[FIMN]

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/goldman-sachs-paid-hillary-675000-for-this/

Bbbbbbut Hillary

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Perhaps you should also get the facts straight? The article states that it requires approval from his administration - which it does. Approval from the administration does not mean direct approval from the POTUS.

Going to stick with the "Trump doesnt have to approve" argument when your quote states he benefits monetarily from their bribing him for approval...TDS level...

The double-sided argument is always used by those with no ground to actually stand on.

 

[panamaican]

Oh, I didnt realize you reply using quotes but toss out whats in those quotes to form an argument. Great posting method...

And no, you dont get to say "Administration" while also using "Individual" as an argument especially since you will not let the news past your confirmation bias that Trump does not control the two bodies that have to approve it...with one of those bodies having DEMOCRATS ON IT.

Uses confirmation bias, doesnt seem to care what is in quotes being replied to as long as orange man bad makes sense.

THe individual is benefitting through his office. Do you not understand the what the office of the President is?

The Office of the President is the entire Executive Branch. All of the Executive Branch agencies and every one he appoints to them are part of his Administration. This should be basic level civics.

I'm not even mocking you anymore, I didn't realize that you didn't know this stuff.

 

[bobgeese]

LOLOLOLOLOLLLLL


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



Trumps family literally runs a business, liberals feign outrage.




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

 

[panamaican]

Going to stick with the "Trump doesnt have to approve" argument when your quote states he benefits monetarily from their bribing him for approval...TDS level...

The double-sided argument is always used by those with no ground to actually stand on.

I already stopped arguing this with you. I didn't realize that you don't properly understand what the office of the President entails.

But in case you didn't read the other post. The Office of the President includes the entirety of the Executive Branch. His administration is far larger than just the White House. It includes all of the federal agencies who are responsible for executing the laws and regulations.

When someone says the office of the President or the President's administration, it means the entire Executive Branch.

 

[IGIT]

'evening TCK,

I used him to point out hypocrisy.

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.

That was not my experience igit

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