Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 06:46:06 PM

Title: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 06:46:06 PM
Any concerns with a non-appointed, non-confirmed person getting an office in the WH...AND phone/devices with govt encryption?
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2017, 08:01:12 PM
Any concerns with a non-appointed, non-confirmed person getting an office in the WH...AND phone/devices with govt encryption?

You want a fucks given counter too?
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 08:29:31 PM
You want a fucks given counter too?

I know you're being glib, but does it truly not bother you that someone is being given all this access with none of the required vetting?
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: djsimp on March 21, 2017, 08:55:11 PM
I know you're being glib, but does it truly not bother you that someone is being given all this access with none of the required vetting?

It's because she is the smart one in the family.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 08:56:55 PM
It's because she is the smart one in the family.

Then she should have gotten elected...or confirmed by Congress.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Token on March 21, 2017, 09:03:42 PM
I know you're being glib, but does it truly not bother you that someone is being given all this access with none of the required vetting?

Personally I would prefer the vetting.  BUT, the same vetting system allowed the Clintons to operate for decades as politicians while lining their pockets off tax payers.   
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2017, 09:05:04 PM
I know you're being glib, but does it truly not bother you that someone is being given all this access with none of the required vetting?

No.  It doesn't.  "Access" my ass.  Just another (pun coming) trumped up pile of bullshit.  They're going to keep throwing shit at the wall against him and the end result isn't going to be what they think it is. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
Personally I would prefer the vetting.  BUT, the same vetting system allowed the Clintons to operate for decades as politicians while lining their pockets off tax payers.

Going to need citations to the Clintons setting anyone up with an office at 1600 Pennsylvania...and getting them govt encrypted phones...for this comparison to stand.

No.  It doesn't.  "Access" my ass.  Just another (pun coming) trumped up pile of bullshit.  They're going to keep throwing shit at the wall against him and the end result isn't going to be what they think it is. 

Not terribly surprising, but dismaying.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 21, 2017, 09:13:18 PM
The she should have gotten elected...or confirmed by Congress.

She's a damn sight easier on the eyes than the Prez. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:18:30 PM
She's a damn sight easier on the eyes than the Prez.

Not disputing that.  Hell, even her daddy wants to bang her.  Admittedly.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 21, 2017, 09:23:50 PM
Not disputing that.  Hell, even her daddy wants to bang her.  Admittedly.

In answer to your original question, it's a dumbass move by the Prez.  If she is to be considered a government employee, and she is, then go through the proper ethics clearance and avoid all this BS.  He's bringing this on himself and deserves the shit storm that's already raining down. 

I'm not worried in the least about her or her role.  But Jeebus Donald, quit soft tossing ammunition to the thousands of critics.  It's unnecessary.  Just do it the right way the first time.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:28:46 PM
In answer to your original question, it's a dumbass move by the Prez.  If she is to be considered a government employee, and she is, then go through the proper ethics clearance and avoid all this BS.  He's bringing this on himself and deserves the shit storm that's already raining down. 

I'm not worried in the least about her or her role.  But Jeebus Donald, quit soft tossing ammunition to the thousands of critics.  It's unnecessary.  Just do it the right way the first time.

Ok...but how do you reconcile those two opinions?

Is it ok because he's doing it...or is it impermissible...or is it not ok, but she's hot?

Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2017, 09:29:06 PM
Going to need citations to the Clintons setting anyone up with an office at 1600 Pennsylvania...and getting them govt encrypted phones...for this comparison to stand.

Not terribly surprising, but dismaying.

Also not terribly surprising, but dismaying is you shitting your pants over it. 

She's getting a secure phone.  Whoopdefucking doodeedoodeedoo.  You don't even know what level of "access" she's gonna have.  You don't know how many other hundreds of thousands of people have some level of access now or in the past.  You don't know how all of them were provided access and clearance.  They damn sure didn't all go in front of fucking congress.

But by all means.  Shit your pants over another trumped up nothing.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Token on March 21, 2017, 09:31:05 PM
Going to need citations to the Clintons setting anyone up with an office at 1600 Pennsylvania...and getting them govt encrypted phones...for this comparison to stand.


There is no comparison that I'm aware of and that isn't really what I'm saying.  The "vetting" has allowed some slimy crooked politicians into the extremely important positions for years.  I have no reason to believe they wouldn't have allowed her anyway. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:38:10 PM
Also not terribly surprising, but dismaying is you shitting your pants over it. 

She's getting a secure phone.  Whoopdefucking doodeedoodeedoo.  You don't even know what level of "access" she's gonna have.  You don't know how many other hundreds of thousands of people have some level of access now or in the past.  You don't know how all of them were provided access and clearance.  They damn sure didn't all go in front of fucking congress.

But by all means.  Shit your pants over another trumped up nothing.

Presumably she's getting a phone that will allow her to receive state secrets...without any oversight. 

This should bother you.

I'm not terribly surprised that it doesn't.

There is no comparison that I'm aware of and that isn't really what I'm saying.  The "vetting" has allowed some slimy crooked politicians into the extremely important positions for years.  I have no reason to believe they wouldn't have allowed her anyway. 

I don't even know what this means.  She now has unprecedented access to information that is otherwise unavailable.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 21, 2017, 09:39:12 PM
Ok...but how do you reconcile those two opinions?

Is it ok because he's doing it...or is it impermissible...or is it not ok, but she's hot?

I can't reconcile the hotness.  It is what it is.  My problem is whether salaried or not, she's still considered a government employee and as such, needs to go through the proper ethics "vetting" if you will.  He'd take some shit for putting another family member in the WH anyway.  I don't have a problem with that at all.  Unfortunately, too much of politics are all about favors and who you know etc.  Just be open about it and go through the proper channels and three people are left to do their obligatory bitching.   
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:40:46 PM
I can't reconcile the hotness.  It is what it is.  My problem is whether salaried or not, she's still considered a government employee and as such, needs to go through the proper ethics "vetting" if you will.  He'd take some shit for putting another family member in the WH anyway.  I don't have a problem with that at all.  Unfortunately, too much of politics are all about favors and who you know etc.  Just be open about it and go through the proper channels and three people are left to do their obligatory bitching.

Goddamn.  I'm a member of the bar and can't figure out where you land on this.  Simple question: ok or not?
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 21, 2017, 09:46:12 PM
Goddamn.  I'm a member of the bar and can't figure out where you land on this.  Simple question: ok or not?

Gawt Damn. I already said I'm fine with her in the position.  It's just the way The Donald is going about it that's causing the problem.  Not that hard to comprehend.  This:

Ambassador Norm Eisen, former White House Ethics Counsel under President Obama, said. “So we are headed for yet another Trump ethics dispute in a White House and administration that is already chock full of them.”

Eisen said that, despite these conditions confirmed by the White House, Ivanka Trump is subject by law to ethics rules, and not voluntarily subject to them as she and the administration have claimed.

“Why not head it off by going all the way now, and fully submitting to ethics rules rather than the half-measures that have been laid out, however positive their direction?” Eisen said.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Token on March 21, 2017, 09:47:33 PM
 
I don't even know what this means.  She now has unprecedented access to information that is otherwise unavailable.

IF she had been "vetted" and cleared, you'd be ok then?

The vetting system is a joke.  That's what I'm saying.  It's a waste of time.  I would prefer that serious background checks be conducted on every single person seeking a position.  It's not.  It's a charade.  They weren't going to allow Sessions.  They did.  They weren't going to allow (fill in the blank).  They did. 

I'm saying EVEN IF they vetted her it would have taken longer but she'd still be where she is. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:48:55 PM
Gawt Damn. I already said I'm fine with her in the position.  It's just the way The Donald is going about it that's causing the problem.  Not that hard to comprehend.  This:

Ambassador Norm Eisen, former White House Ethics Counsel under President Obama, said. “So we are headed for yet another Trump ethics dispute in a White House and administration that is already chock full of them.”

Eisen said that, despite these conditions confirmed by the White House, Ivanka Trump is subject by law to ethics rules, and not voluntarily subject to them as she and the administration have claimed.

“Why not head it off by going all the way now, and fully submitting to ethics rules rather than the half-measures that have been laid out, however positive their direction?” Eisen said.

So...trying not to put words (or big meaty cocks) in your mouth...but...your answer is:

This shit is wrong without proper protocol.

Why is that so hard to say?
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 21, 2017, 09:50:27 PM
IF she had been "vetted" and cleared, you'd be ok then?

The vetting system is a joke.  That's what I'm saying.  It's a waste of time.  I would prefer that serious background checks be conducted on every single person seeking a position.  It's not.  It's a charade.  They weren't going to allow Sessions.  They did.  They weren't going to allow (fill in the blank).  They did. 

I'm saying EVEN if they vetted her it would have taken longer but she'd still be where she is.

With 1/5 the media shit storm.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 21, 2017, 09:51:45 PM
IF she had been "vetted" and cleared, you'd be ok then?

The vetting system is a joke.  That's what I'm saying.  It's a waste of time.  I would prefer that serious background checks be conducted on every single person seeking a position.  It's not.  It's a charade.  They weren't going to allow Sessions.  They did.  They weren't going to allow (fill in the blank).  They did. 

I'm saying EVEN IF they vetted her it would have taken longer but she'd still be where she is.

Yes.  Because in this case her approval would require, at least, congressional approval. 

I'm under no illusion that the current admin is holding fast and tight to the law.  What I want is a paper trail and a case for recourse.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Token on March 21, 2017, 09:52:01 PM
With 1/5 the media shit storm.

The media does nothing but make shit storms. 

I have zero faith that anything will really change under GOP control.  Politicians are politicians. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 21, 2017, 09:53:42 PM
So...trying not to put words (or big meaty cocks) in your mouth...but...your answer is:

This shit is wrong without proper protocol.

Why is that so hard to say?

What's wrong with big meaty cocks?  There, I said it. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: AUChizad on March 21, 2017, 10:18:26 PM
I'm pretty much with Snags.

It'd be better if she went through the "proper channels", but as with most things regarding the Trump presidency. Slight abnormalities, of which there are plenty, get dialed to 11.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ivanka-trumps-white-house-role-unprecedented/story?id=44282871

Quote
How Ivanka Trump's Possible White House Role Wouldn't Be Unprecedented

Although a Trump adviser says it's a "fair assessment" that his daughter, Ivanka, may play an active role in the administration, she wouldn't be the first child of a president to do so.

Anita McBride, a former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush and board member of the White House Historical Association, points to several historical examples of first daughters taking on active roles to help their fathers in the White House.

“A fair number throughout our history have stepped up to help the president,” McBride said in an interview with ABC News.

“It wouldn't be unusual for a first child to step out, but this may be different if she is directly in charge of an initiative,” she added.

Though the Trump transition team has yet to announce what role, if any, Ivanka Trump may play in the future administration, she and her husband Jared Kushner have been house-hunting in Washington. And adviser Kellyanne Conway has said it's a "fair assessment" that she will be an active player.

"Ivanka is incredibly committed to women in the workplace, women in the economy, women entrepreneurs," Conway told reporters last week. "She has had a wonderful platform during the campaign."

President Harry Truman’s daughter, Margaret, prominently stepped in to a first lady-like role, McBride said, because her mother did not enjoy the public spotlight.

“Margaret Daniel stepped in to support President Truman,” McBride said. “Bess Truman didn't really like being here in Washington, she had a very limited public life.”

And with Melania Trump expected to delay her move to the White House so that son Barron can finish the school year in New York, McBride says it’s conceivable that Ivanka Trump may assume aspects of the role of first lady.

President Ronald Reagan’s daughter, Maureen, stands as another example of a first daughter assuming a prominent role during her father’s presidency, even serving as the co-chair of the Republican National Committee. She also lived in the White House.

And when Lyndon Johnson came to the White House, his daughter Lynda, who was a college student at the time, moved back in with her parents.

“Lynda Johnson moved back to the White House, went to school locally, and brought her college roommate and lived together in the White House,” McBride said. “It was at the height of the Vietnam War, it was a tough time.”

McBride says Johnson's daughter took an active role alongside her mother, Lady Bird Johnson, and traveled with her through the South to campaign and promote Johnson's Civil Rights agenda.

Regardless of what role Ivanka Trump ultimately plays in her father's administration if any, McBride expressed optimism that the White House will adapt accordingly.

"The White House always adapts to its new occupants, but also the occupants adapt to the history of the White House, so it's all going to work out just fine," McBride said.

Let alone the fact that she is far and away the most well-adjusted, moderate, sane, intelligent member of that family. She's the least of my worries.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2017, 10:41:24 PM
Presumably she's getting a phone that will allow her to receive state secrets...without any oversight. 

This should bother you.

I'm not terribly surprised that it doesn't.

I don't even know what this means.  She now has unprecedented access to information that is otherwise unavailable.

PRESUMABLY

But go right ahead and soil your diapers.  Add your Trump baaaaaaaaad bleating to the cacophony. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2017, 10:44:02 PM
Yes.  Because in this case her approval would require, at least, congressional approval. 

I'm under no illusion that the current admin is holding fast and tight to the law.  What I want is a paper trail and a case for recourse.

Jesus CHRIST. 

Would you listen to yourself? 

Where was the Clinton paper trail? Bleached?  Where was the Imam's fucking paper trail? Forged?

Who gives a a fuck that you want vengeance recourse? 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 22, 2017, 07:40:23 AM
Jesus CHRIST. 

Would you listen to yourself? 

Where was the Clinton paper trail? Bleached?  Where was the Imam's fucking paper trail? Forged?

Who gives a a fuck that you want vengeance recourse?

Of all the things that occurred between 92-2000 and 2008-2012 and THIS is what they reach for NOW? Good grief. Sorry Wes but you're being an ideologue here. You didn't give two shits about any kind of presidential integrity or transgressions until this guy took office. Now suddenly you care? Gimme a break dude.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Ogre on March 22, 2017, 07:54:41 AM
Wes - serious question.  Were you cool with Valerie Jarrett's role in the Obama administration? 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 22, 2017, 08:09:15 AM
Wes - serious question.  Were you cool with Valerie Jarrett's role in the Obama administration?

Yes. Her. And many others. Related to Jarrett, how's about  Lyin' Susan Rice and her 5 different tales about Benghazi? The list goes on and on about things under that administration we could point out. Real issues.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2017, 10:00:54 AM
Wes - serious question.  Were you cool with Valerie Jarrett's role in the Obama administration?

Not germane, since she had an actual job/title, but not really cool with it.

The "well Obama did it, too" argument is the weakest.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2017, 10:07:44 AM
PRESUMABLY

But go right ahead and soil your diapers.  Add your Trump baaaaaaaaad bleating to the cacophony.

Jamie Gorelick, an attorney and ethics adviser for Ivanka Trump, said Monday that the first daughter will not have an official title, but will get a West Wing office, government-issued communications devices and security clearance to access classified information.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ivanka-trump-west-wing-office-classified-information-access/&ved=0ahUKEwjtuPqCqerSAhXMOCYKHbcYDxsQFghXMBE&usg=AFQjCNFuM4QK-jsxVT2c483A1DChgkCg4g&sig2=4G1FbG9wcG3PuO10OxBEgQ
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Ogre on March 22, 2017, 11:11:05 AM
Not germane, since she had an actual job/title, but not really cool with it.

The "well Obama did it, too" argument is the weakest.

That's not my argument.  I never said I agreed with this move by Trump.  And while they're not exactly the same, it was well known that Valerie Jarrett was a close, personal friend of Obama's.  So much so that  she lived in the White House.  Where was the vetting process for her?  I don't recall those hearings.  Or is it not germane simply because Obama gave her a job title?

You say you weren't really cool with it, but I never saw a thread titled "Valerie." 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: AUChizad on March 22, 2017, 11:26:59 AM
That's not my argument.  I never said I agreed with this move by Trump.  And while they're not exactly the same, it was well known that Valerie Jarrett was a close, personal friend of Obama's.  So much so that  she lived in the White House.  Where was the vetting process for her?  I don't recall those hearings.  Or is it not germane simply because Obama gave her a job title?

You say you weren't really cool with it, but I never saw a thread titled "Valerie."
I think Wes is failing to see that no one here is "totally cool with it" either. Well, maybe the usual ideologues are, but most here aren't.

But also don't see this as the 5-Alarm hysteria the media is trying to make it out to be.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 22, 2017, 11:35:22 AM
Not germane, since she had an actual job/title, but not really cool with it.

The "well Obama did it, too" argument is the weakest.

No one is cool with it. And no one is justifying possibly bad behavior with other bad behavior. I'm just pointing out your selective criticism. Which appears to be based in ideology.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2017, 12:06:40 PM
I think Wes is failing to see that no one here is "totally cool with it" either. Well, maybe the usual ideologues are, but most here aren't.


That's my audience here.  Trying to shake the cognitive dissonance a bit.

No one is cool with it. And no one is justifying possibly bad behavior with other bad behavior. I'm just pointing out your selective criticism. Which appears to be based in ideology.

I make no bones about hating DT in my White House.

It's not ideology, per se, except to the extent anyone identifies with DT's willful ignorance as an ideology.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: AUChizad on March 22, 2017, 12:06:43 PM
No one is cool with it. And no one is justifying possibly bad behavior with other bad behavior. I'm just pointing out your selective criticism. Which appears to be based in ideology.
To be fair to Wes, the media didn't make anywhere near as big a deal over Jarrett because they are guilty of selective criticism. And that's a problem.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2017, 12:08:07 PM
To be fair to Wes, the media didn't make anywhere near as big a deal over Jarrett because they are guilty of selective criticism. And that's a problem.

I'm sure every president has a similar story.

It's not so much the violation of federal nepotism laws that irk me as much as the total tone deafness of this administration.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 22, 2017, 12:15:31 PM
I'm sure every president has a similar story.

It's not so much the violation of federal nepotism laws that irk me as much as the total tone deafness of this administration.

Ehh?  What did you say? 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2017, 12:19:29 PM
Ehh?  What did you say?

Turn up the miracle ear, old timer!
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 22, 2017, 12:34:17 PM
Turn up the miracle ear, old timer!

Cut

A bitch will get.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2017, 01:18:34 PM
I'm sure every president has a similar story.

It's not so much the violation of federal nepotism laws that irk me as much as the total tone deafness of this administration.

Or perhaps it's just the overzealous nature of a media that didn't get its way making mountains out of heretofore normal activities.

You're a hypocrite. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 22, 2017, 02:15:23 PM
Turn up the miracle ear, old timer!

What?  Oh yeah.  There, that's better. 


Now get off my fucking lawn, Sonny!
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Six on March 22, 2017, 02:55:14 PM
I'm sure every president has a similar story.

It's not so much the violation of federal nepotism laws that irk me as much as the total tone deafness of this administration.

Former President Eisenhower rolls over in his grave at neoliberal terms like "tone deaf" and such. We are a country of pussified, overly sensitive, asking-to-be-taken-over bunch of ascot-wearing, Pinot-drinking, wussbags. I am ashamed of even myself.  :facepalm: Tone deaf. FFS
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2017, 04:21:58 PM
Former President Eisenhower rolls over in his grave at neoliberal terms like "tone deaf" and such. We are a country of pussified, overly sensitive, asking-to-be-taken-over bunch of ascot-wearing, Pinot-drinking, wussbags. I am ashamed of even myself.  :facepalm: Tone deaf. FFS

Reactionary holdovers can bitch about "optics", but they matter.

Context matters.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Prowler on March 22, 2017, 05:37:39 PM
"Vetting" with the current administration is apparently overrated. Sad!

Off topic, but this is regarding the type of vetting under Trump...
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort close ties to Russia.

Manafort, working as a consultant, signed a $10 million annual contract with Russian oligarch and aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska in 2006 after pitching plans to help Russian interests around the world, the AP reported.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort purportedly wrote in a confidential 2005 memo to Deripaska obtained by the AP.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/paul-manafort-once-worked-benefit-putin-government-report-n736881
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2017, 05:58:22 PM
"Vetting" with the current administration is apparently overrated. Sad!

Off topic, but this is regarding the type of vetting under Trump...
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort close ties to Russia.

Manafort, working as a consultant, signed a $10 million annual contract with Russian oligarch and aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska in 2006 after pitching plans to help Russian interests around the world, the AP reported.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort purportedly wrote in a confidential 2005 memo to Deripaska obtained by the AP.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/paul-manafort-once-worked-benefit-putin-government-report-n736881

Some of you are fucking idiots.

This shit is the equivalent of those pictures of Hillary fucking the Area 51 alien that were in The Globe.  Only difference is the fakestream media is running around freaking out about it. 

Want to investigate something?  Check into Obamas Islamic terror connections.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: CCTAU on March 22, 2017, 06:09:32 PM
So another Trump is forgoing a salary to help MAGA?

Trump, still saving money!
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Prowler on March 22, 2017, 06:47:38 PM
Some of you are fucking idiots.

This shit is the equivalent of those pictures of Hillary fucking the Area 51 alien that were in The Globe.  Only difference is the fakestream media is running around freaking out about it. 

Want to investigate something?  Check into Obamas Islamic terror connections.
You are the fucking idiot.

This is about Trump's vetting and how it's either nonexistent or he is purposely putting people in power that have close ties to Russia for his own personal gain, "for Trump, by Trump".

You just keep on hoping that ALL of this is "fake news", because right now that's all that you have...hope.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: CCTAU on March 22, 2017, 09:37:34 PM
You are the fucking idiot.

This is about Trump's vetting and how it's either nonexistent or he is purposely putting people in power that have close ties to Russia for his own personal gain, "for Trump, by Trump".

You just keep on hoping that ALL of this is "fake news", because right now that's all that you have...hope.


Still too stupid to read huh?


This is nothing new. Been done before. Not an issue!
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: WiregrassTiger on March 22, 2017, 10:11:42 PM
You are the fucking idiot.

This is about Trump's vetting and how it's either nonexistent or he is purposely putting people in power that have close ties to Russia for his own personal gain, "for Trump, by Trump".

You just keep on hoping that ALL of this is "fake news", because right now that's all that you have...hope.
You tell 'em P.

And we just finished 8 years of hope. We want CHANGE!

Wait.....
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 22, 2017, 10:23:06 PM
You tell 'em P.

And we just finished 8 years of hope. We want CHANGE!

Wait.....

Hopey/Changey....Fake News. 


Wait, there was definite change.  My health insurance premiums eclipsed $20,000.00 a year. 

I hope that changes.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Prowler on March 24, 2017, 09:05:04 PM
Hopey/Changey....Fake News. 


Wait, there was definite change.  My health insurance premiums eclipsed $20,000.00 a year. 

I hope that changes.
Nope.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2017, 09:15:30 PM
Nope.

It's only been two months.  This isn't over. 
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: CCTAU on March 24, 2017, 09:17:56 PM
It's only been two months.  This isn't over.


Oh no. Not true. Trump lost. He may as well quit. He's not even as good as obummer and pelosi. They were able to push their stuff through. They are winners. This proves Trump is a loser!


The left is giddy. They still don't get it!
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Prowler on March 24, 2017, 09:32:10 PM
It's only been two months.  This isn't over.
...they just need more time (8 years is not enough).
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2017, 11:23:53 PM
...they just need more time (8 years is not enough).

Jesus hoozit you lack depth.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 25, 2017, 09:09:44 AM
Jesus hoozit you lack depth.

Curious how he feels about Clinton Cash. All those middle eastern and African back channel deals with the Clinton foundation/slush fund.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Prowler on March 25, 2017, 02:40:55 PM
Curious how he feels about Clinton Cash. All those middle eastern and African back channel deals with the Clinton foundation/slush fund.
Curious how you feel about the price of Copenhagen in Denmark, the price of beans in China, or the price of Maple syrup in Ontario.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 26, 2017, 10:17:52 AM
Curious how you feel about the price of Copenhagen in Denmark, the price of beans in China, or the price of Maple syrup in Ontario.

That's what I thought. Take your iq of 67 and go retread tires with Forrest Gump.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: The Prowler on March 27, 2017, 07:22:32 AM
That's what I thought. Take your iq of 67 and go retread tires with Forrest Gump.
Take your IQ of 7 and go drink paint. No one is talking about Clinton right now. This is about Ivanka basically being the first lady and about Trump's administration lack of vetting (republicans better hope it's a lack of vetting and not knowingly putting people, that are foreign agents, in positions that have high level security clearances).
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: War Eagle!!! on March 27, 2017, 08:02:51 AM
knowingly putting people, that are foreign agents, in positions that have high level security clearances).

Good god man...
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on March 27, 2017, 10:49:18 AM
Good god man...

He's beyond help. He REALLY believes this stuff. Nothing aside from a strong anti psychotic drug is gonna fix that.
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: GH2001 on April 03, 2017, 02:52:54 PM
Yes. Her. And many others. Related to Jarrett, how's about  Lyin' Susan Rice and her 5 different tales about Benghazi? The list goes on and on about things under that administration we could point out. Real issues.

Yeah. So about Susan Rice and that wiretap unmasking thing....
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: War Eagle!!! on April 04, 2017, 08:24:47 AM
You should not be able to post in this thread without a picture of the subject of this thread...

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ourKAVrrWBw/VEmHHJL8WgI/AAAAAAAAnRM/-uNZn8_68D8/s1600/295086-ivanka-trump-grants-16-year-old-aspiring-designers-wish.jpg)
Title: Re: Ivanka
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 04, 2017, 08:57:09 AM
Make America Hot Again