Queen Ivanka

marplots said:
Isn't Japan one of those countries where the government and business interests have been in bed together for decades?
Click to expand...
The PM did seem to wear a biz-as-usual face. However, meaning what? Confirmation that there was, from a US perspective, an inherent conflict of interest in that meeting.

Darth Rotor said:
Mind reading didn't used to be believed by skeptics...
Click to expand...
...My read as well.
Click to expand...
Gee, that was quick! (/jk)

***
The patently obvious conflicts of interest are just that. Are there, in the end, any principles or values Republicans are not willing to abandon at the drop of a hat for money and power? Any formerly held formal positions regarding foreign and domestic affairs not for sale?
 
Upchurch said:
For all the complaining I heard over "Crooked Hillary", I've heard barely a peep about Trump's rather blatant conflicts of interest being a concern.
Click to expand...
Shoe's on the other foot now, huh? I expressed my views on the double standard more than once. I'm sorry you missed it. Maybe I'll reprise the discussion for you sometime.

Meanwhile, here's another thought I have: In their eagerness to get Crooked Hillary into the Oval Office, the progs gave up their standing to complain about Crooked Trump.
 
theprestige said:
Shoe's on the other foot now, huh? I expressed my views on the double standard more than once. I'm sorry you missed it. Maybe I'll reprise the discussion for you sometime.

Meanwhile, here's another thought I have: In their eagerness to get Crooked Hillary into the Oval Office, the progs gave up their standing to complain about Crooked Trump.
Click to expand...

More like another false equivalence: a trumped up "appearance" of a conflict of interest versus gob-stopping actual conflict of interest.
 
WilliamSeger said:
More like another false equivalence: a trumped up "appearance" of a conflict of interest versus gob-stopping actual conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

This.

Trump's "blind trust" is being managed by his own kids who are actively participating in his transition team. There is no way that is even close to someone who donated to a charity asking for a favor that may or may not have been given. And now, we're talking about one of those kids, who are running the family business, having an active role in the White House.
 
WilliamSeger said:
BTW, didn't the Boy King pardon her already?
Click to expand...

Strap in, kiddies. We're in for four years of the progs first complaining loudly whenever Trump says he's going to do a thing, and then complaining twice as loud when he decides not to do it. One can only imagine the apopleptic heights they will reach by the end of his term, when he hasn't yet got around to nuking Iran.
 
Loss Leader said:
Incidentally, Ivanka would not be the first non-spouse to serve as White House hostess, or First Lady. Bachelor James Buchanan's niece served the role and the term First lady was actually coined for her. By all accounts, she was as charming and generous as Buchanan was inept.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's prophetic.
 
theprestige said:
WilliamSeger said:
BTW, didn't the Boy King pardon her already? Will Pence pardon him?
Click to expand...
Strap in, kiddies. We're in for four years of the progs first complaining loudly whenever Trump says he's going to do a thing, and then complaining twice as loud when he decides not to do it. One can only imagine the apopleptic heights they will reach by the end of his term, when he hasn't yet got around to nuking Iran.
Click to expand...

Nope, the specific complaint here would be that you're trying to excuse DJT's clear conflict of interest by claiming Hillary had a conflict of interest, which even if true, would be an excuse that anyone who has raised children would recognize.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Nope, the specific complaint here would be that you're trying to excuse DJT's clear conflict of interest by claiming Hillary had a conflict of interest, which even if true, would be an excuse that anyone who has raised children would recognize.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with the post you quoted, nor the comment it replies to.

And no, the specific complaint is that while Trump's conflicts of interest are real and problematic, Clinton's supporters have given themselves no standing to object.
 
theprestige said:
That has nothing to do with the post you quoted, nor the comment it replies to.

And no, the specific complaint is that while Trump's conflicts of interest are real and problematic, Clinton's supporters have given themselves no standing to object.
Click to expand...

Do you get the internet where you are? Hillary Clinton is done. You don't have to run against her any longer. This thread is about the problem you/we have to deal with, a certain Donald Trump, the president-elect, and his conflicts of interest. Peripherally, it's about why conservatives, present company included, are willing to mortgage their prior claims to the high-horse of morality and give him the benefit of the doubt as long as the power shifts away from the liberals.

'Cuz it ain't about winning power for conservatives. Trump's no conservative. It's all about beating the other guy.
 
theprestige said:
You still don't really understand, do you? You're close, but you don't quite get it.
Click to expand...

I think many "get it" but just will not accept it. People like you think DJT should not be held responsible for his actions or words at all. It is not a reasonable position.
 
theprestige said:
"People like you"?

Oh, I think he should be held accountable. Just not by Hillary's supporters.
Click to expand...

So you're into this zero-sum thing? You meanies lost so you're not going to have a say because you supported Hillary.


Isn't the great hue and cry out there about dismissing the beliefs and opinions of half the country? Or does that only apply to arrogant liberals who don't like bigots? Puffed up conservatives who are feeling their oats because they won the election are okay in ignoring the LOL Libruls. Losers! Whatever happened to the "president of all the people". This is an internal Republican issue now, is it?
 
TragicMonkey said:
You do realize the president is supposed to serve the entire country, not just the portion that voted for him?
Click to expand...

That is meaningless. The only referendum on the president are elections (even the ones between presidential ones). A president that serves everyone does not achieve materially better results than one that serves only their voters and wins the same elections.
 
Foolmewunz said:
...This thread is about the problem you/we have to deal with, a certain Donald Trump, the president-elect, and his conflicts of interest...
Click to expand...

*Ahem*

I know it gets confusing, with all the threads about Trump, but this is the one about Queen Ivanka.

Her power grab, the insane hold she has over her father, whether her selling of baubles to rich people constitutes gravitas or frivolity - who is equally insane, but that's not the point. - and her husband, who also seems to hold an inordinate amount of power. Still, I guess the position of husband of the first lady has few rules.

While I try to avoid most of the news involving any Trump, you do see the links to the stories and I can't say I recall Melania even being mentioned since they said she was staying in NY with Little Lord Fauntleroy.

Has anyone done a poll on Queen Ivanka's popularity? 50/40, according to one small sample.

And that was back at the start of August, before she took centre stage. Betcha it's 60+ right now. Heck, I'd even have a chocolate fish on 70+.
 
The Atheist said:
*Ahem*

I know it gets confusing, with all the threads about Trump, but this is the one about Queen Ivanka.

Her power grab, the insane hold she has over her father, whether her selling of baubles to rich people constitutes gravitas or frivolity - who is equally insane, but that's not the point. - and her husband, who also seems to hold an inordinate amount of power. Still, I guess the position of husband of the first lady has few rules.

While I try to avoid most of the news involving any Trump, you do see the links to the stories and I can't say I recall Melania even being mentioned since they said she was staying in NY with Little Lord Fauntleroy.

Has anyone done a poll on Queen Ivanka's popularity? 50/40, according to one small sample.

And that was back at the start of August, before she took centre stage. Betcha it's 60+ right now. Heck, I'd even have a chocolate fish on 70+.
Click to expand...

Ahem "Queen Ivanka" doesn't exist.... as an entity or as a problem if there's no President Trump. She's the point person for his neo-robber-baron capitalism approach. If there was no President Trump we wouldn't be discussing "Queen" Ivanka and she'd be on Page Six with the other gossip celebrities, with the mouth-breathing public guessing as to whether she's had a nose job and a chin job or just botox for the cheek bones,.... you know, important stuff American Style.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Ahem "Queen Ivanka" doesn't exist.... as an entity or as a problem if there's no President Trump. She's the point person for his neo-robber-baron capitalism approach. If there was no President Trump we wouldn't be discussing "Queen" Ivanka and she'd be on Page Six with the other gossip celebrities, with the mouth-breathing public guessing as to whether she's had a nose job and a chin job or just botox for the cheek bones,.... you know, important stuff American Style.
Click to expand...

However, she is the president-elect's daughter and seems to be taking on FLOTUS status and more.

"Wrapping daddy around her little finger" I think it the traditional phrase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom