Nonprofit Linked to Trump Sons Offers Donors Access to President

[Last Samurai]

this is not surprising


not the first time he's gone after Hillary for stuff he himself was doing. he even tried to pin the birther movement on her. the man has no shame

 

[MicroBrew]

this is not surprising


not the first time he's gone after Hillary for stuff he himself was doing. he even tried to pin the birther movement on her. the man has no shame

He is sort of kinda vaguely right with the Birther movement comment but he left soo much out, that it is very misleading.

A staunch Hillary supporters started the Birther movement , but this had nothing to do with the Hillary camp. It was the rightwing that totally co-opted the Birther movement and ran with it, and Donald was its most famous and highest profile promoter. If not for Birtherism , there would be no President Trump.

 

[TheStruggle]

WSJ Blog? Seems credible

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...-access-to-president-on-inauguration-weekend/

Do you have a opinion on this or just wish to post blogs and twitter?

 

[TheStruggle]

Rebecca Ballhaus is another bitter former HuffPo writer who spends her instead time complaining about Trump. We've already exposed three of them this week.

 

[oldshadow]

Is this the kids cancer charity his son is involved in?

I got no problem with Donald showing up to raise funds as long as it's before he is sworn in.

I got no problem with his son staying with this charity as long as he gets (and the rest of the family) no money from the charity. They take no salary for any work they do.

Also all the books must be open to the public.

 

[RockstarChris]

I can't confirm but I'm hearing a gentleman from Moscow is the top donor so far.

So? Why do liberals want to hate Russia so much?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What does that have to do with the discussion?

Don't know. Lost track of what the bone of contention was here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't know. Lost track of what the bone of contention was here.

Most recently, I was asking for and predictably not getting an explanation of the "revelations" from the hacked emails that you thought people were deflecting from (you brought that up as a deflection from the story that the thread is about). Before that, I'd noted the tendency of fanatics to take the worst real or imagined behavior of their opponents as their own guide to proper standards of behavior.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Most recently, I was asking for and predictably not getting an explanation of the "revelations" from the hacked emails that you thought people were deflecting from (you brought that up as a deflection from the story that the thread is about). Before that, I'd noted the tendency of fanatics to take the worst real or imagined behavior of their opponents as their own guide to proper standards of behavior.

Looks to me like my post (#99) was pretty clear and your response (#109) missed the boat. The discussion was already beyond the story in the OP. If you won't read the two short articles I posted the talk about things revealed in the leaks then I don't know what you expect me to do for you. One broad was helping to sway the primary for Hilary and the other was feeding her debate questions on the sly. If you need more than that it's really incumbent upon you to actually read about what you (disingenuously) claim you wish to know.

And yeah, your last comment reflects the position taken by many in the multitude of leak threads on this board. The attitude was that the Republicans did the same shit, they just weren't hacked and outed for it. So they imagined bad behavior by the other side, that resembled known behaviors on their side, and used that as a rationalization for condemning none of it. That's what I saw in the threads. You can disagree, but you've already admitted to not reading them so who cares whether you agree this is true or not?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Looks to me like my post (#99) was pretty clear and your response (#109) missed the boat.

What's the answer?

"Person X connected to Clinton did bad thing Y, and this email shows it." Can you fill in the blanks beyond, "the DNC was trying to help Clinton beat Sanders"?

The discussion was already beyond the story in the OP. If you won't read the two short articles I posted the talk about things revealed in the leaks then I don't know what you expect me to do for you. One broad was helping to sway the primary for Hilary and the other was feeding her debate questions on the sly. If you need more than that it's really incumbent upon you to actually read about what you (disingenuously) claim you wish to know.

You suggested that there was something equivalent to what the OP is about, no? Or something criminal. Apparently, the only revelation from the emails that anyone can substantiate is that a couple of people tried inappropriately to help her lock up the nomination (in what was never a close race anyway).

And yeah, your last comment reflects the position taken by many in the multitude of leak threads on this board. The attitude was that the Republicans did the same shit, they just weren't hacked and outed for it.

There's nothing bad there, though. There's no assumption that Republicans did something bad that they weren't shown to have done. That's just in your imagination.

So they imagined bad behavior by the other side, that resembled known behaviors on their side, and used that as a rationalization for condemning none of it.

And we're back to me asking what you're referring to, and presumably you refusing to answer and/or getting mad about being asked, right?

 

[My Spot]

It wasn't a problem for Obama so it shouldn't be a problem for Trump.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What's the answer?

"Person X connected to Clinton did bad thing Y, and this email shows it." Can you fill in the blanks beyond, "the DNC was trying to help Clinton beat Sanders"?



You suggested that there was something equivalent to what the OP is about, no? Or something criminal. Apparently, the only revelation from the emails that anyone can substantiate is that a couple of people tried inappropriately to help her lock up the nomination (in what was never a close race anyway).



There's nothing bad there, though. There's no assumption that Republicans did something bad that they weren't shown to have done. That's just in your imagination.



And we're back to me asking what you're referring to, and presumably you refusing to answer and/or getting mad about being asked, right?

Why is it so important to you to impute some emotionally perspective on me? We all know that's what people do when they need more than good arguments to discredit the other person.

No, I can't fill in the blanks any better than giving you a link with the various things learned through the leaks and two articles with examples where people were "punished" for their actions that were revealed therein. If nothing in any of it bothers you then that's your prerogative to view things that way.

In our discussion I wasn't equating anything with the OP, nor was I accusing anyone of a crime. And the emails substantiate themselves. Unless you're going to make the case they were faked. Which, by the way, nobody else is.

You probably shouldn't tell me I imagined something while reading threads that you already admitted not reading. Your logic is as poor as your ethics if you don't find any flaw in that approach.

Here's a simple and direct question for you to answer. What crime did Trump commit, as per the OP?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why is it so important to you to impute some emotionally perspective on me? We all know that's what people do when they need more than good arguments to discredit the other person.

It's not so important to me. I acknowledge it because it's under the surface of the discussion. The predictability of the whole thing is kind of tiring. The question I'm asking is really easy to answer if you actually have anything.

No, I can't fill in the blanks any better than giving you a link with the various things learned through the leaks and two articles with examples where people were "punished" for their actions that were revealed therein. If nothing in any of it bothers you then that's your prerogative to view things that way.

So is it fair to say that the worst thing to come out of the emails in your view is that a couple of DNC employees tried to help Clinton inappropriately in the primary?

In our discussion I wasn't equating anything with the OP, nor was I accusing anyone of a crime. And the emails substantiate themselves. Unless you're going to make the case they were faked. Which, by the way, nobody else is.

I'm asking what the revelations you were referring to were. Surely you had something in mind, didn't you? I assume that you had some concrete point you were trying to make and weren't just jabbering for team-building purposes.

You probably shouldn't tell me I imagined something while reading threads that you already admitted not reading. Your logic is as poor as your ethics if you don't find any flaw in that approach.

Given your inability to answer a simple direct question here, what else can I conclude?

Here's a simple and direct question for you to answer. What crime did Trump commit, as per the OP?

Not sure if it's merely highly unethical or if an actual crime was being proposed. I think we can agree that it's bad behavior, though, can't we? Just seems like you don't care because it's on your "side," while you were in a tizzy about false allegations of someone else doing something similar. I'm not a fan of that kind of thing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not sure if it's merely highly unethical or if an actual crime was being proposed. I think we can agree that it's bad behavior, though, can't we?

What's "it" exactly, in your view?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's "it" exactly, in your view?

Selling intimate access.

 

[Teppodama]

Selling intimate access.

So they're pimping out the Donald. We talking half and half, round the world, tug and tickle?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Selling intimate access.

Is that crime? If so then he should be prosecuted. If not, what's your complaint?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is that crime? If so then he should be prosecuted. If not, what's your complaint?

Interestingly, some people's ethics don't stop at the law. I guess it explains a lot if you think that anything legal is OK.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Interestingly, some people's ethics don't stop at the law. I guess it explains a lot if you think that anything legal is OK.

So he's committed no crime and you're projecting your ethical views on to me. Gotcha.

What exactly is your ethical concern and what facts support it? What do you want to do about it?


For your edification, this is from my first post in this thread. Surely you can see how I'm expressing ethical concerns, right? Maybe it could have been more overt by using the term "conflict of interest" or something.

Sounds like bullshit to me. A President shouldn't be contributing his efforts or likeness for money. He's getting paid to do one job and one job only. Be fuckin' President.