Guy just asked about Trump's Nazi comment...and the status of his supreme court appointments...and the Mexican border wall, all 3 in one question, as if those three things are of equal concern. I would have thought that the Nazi question would have stood on its own. Trump is getting away with making a joke about so many questions, and is now chatting about the wall.
Let's face it: If you ask 3 questions in one, you will only get one answer. I would have liked to see him squirm about his tweet, than have him repeat campaign talks about the border wall. Oh well.
(no message)
(no message)
Stuff Trump likes - "the best in the history of history"
Stuff Trump hates - "the biggest disaster in history"
There is no middle ground. All hyperbole, all the time.
Subdued, No swagger. A lot of looking downward. Leaning on Pence and that flunky who had to do that softshoe about his phony non-divestiture.
All in all, not very presidential.
I will say though, that I appreciate his sense of humor...like when he uses the word "irresponsible" in reference to people other than himself.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
and you have to respect that.
He is now showing you how he will defeat the media during his Presidencey.
Not very presidential.
(no message)
Trump has no issue with lying, it's not like he pays a price for it, so questions from reporters don't mean shit. If they catch him in a lie later on, so what, he'll just called them crooked and everyone will buy it.
The only issue that matters is Trump not divesting fully from his companies when he is sworn in. He will be getting paid by foreign governments while in office. This is against the Constitution and is impeachable. Will congress care?
Also, all this bullshit about fake news in regards to Russia. The proof is in the pudding. The FBI will investigate. If there is something, he's fucked. If there is nothing, then he's clear. Same with Hillary and her emails. All the bullshit back and forth debate. They investigated, she was cleared. We move on.
Granted, I admit I wanted to hear the juicier stuff, and while the woman was laying out divestment after divestment after divestment, I did other things. But, I do love that people who didn't care about the Clinton Foundation taking money from foreign governments now suddenly care about conflicts of interest.
By the way, what do you mean about "against the Constitution?" The president is explicitly excluded from the conflict of interest legislation. Either you are wrong, or you are talking about something I haven't heard of, so feel free to elaborate.
And it is against the Constitution to accept money from foreign governments while you are in office. It's called the Emoluments clause. If he doesn't fully divest, and handing the business over to his kids is not fully divesting, then he still stands to make a profit. I understand he feels it's unfair for him to have to sever ties with his businesses, but then it's the presidency and if he wants it then that's the deal.
It seems though, that some are cool with the standard being "just do whatever you can get away with" as far as Trump and his businesses. And if that's the case, you assumed Clinton was up to the same no good, then why did you leave us with this fucking moron who doesn't know the first thing about governing if we still get the same amount of corruption, more so actually, but none of the actual knowledge or experience?
The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the Federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so–called "corrupting foreign influences". This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.[2]
The Foundation is far worse than Trump's businesses as far as a conflict. Businesses don't get gifts, and are not under that clause. The conflicts statutes exclude the President, and yet Trump is treating that statute as if it does apply, and divesting. Even if he didn't do it, it would be legal. Even if it were illegal, it still would be a lesser conflict than the Foundation.
And I didn't choose Trump. I voted for Cruz in the primary. The crossover Democrats, fleeing Hillary created Trump. You should be asking your own party why they tried to foist Hillary and Bernie on us, driving the Trump Democrat over to the Republican primary to vote for Trump (who could have very easily decided he was a Democrat at the beginning of all of this).
(no message)
I didn't really listen closely, but I thought he was dividing it up so that sons who managed business were not in government, and any relative advising him as president were not managing business. But, I can see how you might think that is a problem. But, either way, I'm pretty sure he was legally correct when he said he did not have to do this under the law. That is, there is no illegal conflict, even if he kept all the linkages. Perhaps that is a loophole to close, but it is a loophole.
The entire Clinton family should have gotten out of the Clinton Foundation as soon as Hillary accepted the SOS spot. Conflicts were obvious. As is the case of Trump's sons managing his international businesses.
We can't have a situation where every successful businessman has to liquidate all of his enterprises to become president. That seems a bit silly, don't you think? Isn't there a compromise? Trusts have been accepted in the past.
Granted, the Trump businesses could get a lot of business from Dubai all of a sudden, but that still seems better than a flat out contribution to the family fund. Will be interesting to see what happens. The presidency usually does make people rich. Not sure how to get around that.
...for whatever reason they choose.
Corruption. Morals. Incompetence. Take your pick.
He's starting at 37 percent approval (GWB started at 60 after a bitterly contested election).
If the (dems and media) manage to drive it down from there, the GOP won't waste much time...no way they will head into the 2018 elections saddled with a President with an approval rating in the 20s.
(no message)
(no message)
made sense to them again. They lost a lot of credibility by gobbling up the tripe so eagerly without proof.
They just wanted it to be true too much.
Do you prefer for Donnie to pee on you or is it the other way around? Is asparagus involved? Because you really stink.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The only thing that matters is your side won. If Trump was a Dem you'd take the opposite position, but he plays for your team now so you defend all of it.
And you call me the hack. Funny.
(no message)
Trump said he wouldn't give the guy a question because "he is fake news." At least his press conferences will be interesting.
(no message)
(no message)
Wish I could take credit for that. Jesse Watters tweeted that.