And America Continues to Show it's True Colors. . .

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
Well that sure as frog didn't last long. . . .

There's a lesson that we've learned from SST and other educational shows as kids: if at first you don't succeed, try and try again. And apparently, that's now applying to healthcare: despite their own healthcare plan failing more than epically, the GOP has decided they're going to try and try again.
 

Old Thunder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
3,422
Well that sure as frog didn't last long. . . .

There's a lesson that we've learned from SST and other educational shows as kids: if at first you don't succeed, try and try again. And apparently, that's now applying to healthcare: despite their own healthcare plan failing more than epically, the GOP has decided they're going to try and try again.
Good thing they're taking notes!
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
Remember what Jamie was saying about how Trump's supporters will defend any of his actions, no matter how unethical they are? That's exactly what's happening now. Now that Ivanka is getting her own office in the White House, her own official title, and has actually been hired to be on his staff (though she won't accept a salary), people are understandably calling this into question, as this is supposed to be against the law. Trump supporters on the other hand? Their response is: "Nobody complained when Barack Obama hired Michelle to work for him."



Automatically being First Lady because your husband is POTUS and being hired by your daddy because he's DOTDS are two completely different things.
 

MuppetsRule

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
2,658
Reaction score
1,758
Please get the facts before you posts such things. It is NOT against the law for Ivanka to work in the White House. The Justice Department already determined this.

When Kushner officially joined Trump's team in January, the Justice Department concluded that his post as senior adviser was not in violation of federal anti-nepotism laws.
"In choosing his personal staff, the President enjoys an unusual degree of freedom, which Congress found suitable to the demands of his office," wrote Daniel Koffsky, deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as interpreter of federal law for the White House.
Koffsky reasoned in January that the anti-nepotism law covers only appointments in an "executive" agency and that the White House Office is not an executive agency within the law. He cited a separate law that gives the President broad powers to hire his staff.
That law authorizes the President to appoint "employees in the White House office without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the government service."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/ivanka-trump-white-house-job/
 

newsmanfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
1,663
Newsie, is that really you? 8)
Yep! I realized I missed you guys. It's been a while. I'm now in Cheeseland, and engaged!
:shifty:Whoa hold it! Newsie has CHEESE?

Yeah, Rizzo. In fact, there MAY be a 15 year aged cheddar in my fridge...

*Is stampeded by more rats than there were in The Strain*

*Woozily* ergh...I have regrets...
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
2,001
Remember what Jamie was saying about how Trump's supporters will defend any of his actions, no matter how unethical they are? That's exactly what's happening now. Now that Ivanka is getting her own office in the White House, her own official title, and has actually been hired to be on his staff (though she won't accept a salary), people are understandably calling this into question, as this is supposed to be against the law. Trump supporters on the other hand? Their response is: "Nobody complained when Barack Obama hired Michelle to work for him."



Automatically being First Lady because your husband is POTUS and being hired by your daddy because he's DOTDS are two completely different things.
At this point, Trump supporters are of three fold:
  • They don't believe facts when shown to them.
  • They don't care if Trump lies or breaks the law because they believe in what he's doing (even though he's totally hosing his hardworking blue collar base).
They're just plain ignorant, stupid or just blinded by partisanship.

Just watch these same Trump supporters who defended Flynn now throw him under the bus because he's willing to testify against the Trump administration.

It's also clear to me that many people who comment on these threads and on Facebook aren't of voting age and parroting the views of their parents. I just can't with that.

As far as Ivanka, it's not illegal for her to have an office, but it's something that just isn't done because of the perception of nepotism. She has zero experience beyond marketing handbags and clothing. I must also add that many of her designs are rip-offs of other designers' work. Then again, Donald doesn't have much experience at anything either and any real businessman will tell you that Trump's a terrible businessman. He's gone bankrupt three times. He used to totally kiss Obama's butt until he made a joke about the bankruptcies. Then Trump began with the racist birtherism. He never apologized for that.

Getting back to Ivanka, there are definite worries of the Trump family profiting from their time in the White House. That's not legal. She still has a business. I'm not sure if the fact that she's not taking a paycheck prevents the conflict of interest or not. It's just the kind of sticky situation that any sane leader would avoid. She can always help support him like many first daughters have done, but does she really need an office? No, she doesn't.

There's an old saying about never arguing with drunkards or fools. They'll just drag you down with them. I have much respect for Republicans. I have none for Trump supporters at this point. The blindness and ignorance is willful. I'm just done arguing with them. Most won't listen to reason. The best thing that can happen is for Trump to actually succeed at some policy decisions that will bite his blue collar supporters in the butt. Only then will they understand the horrible mistake they've made. No other person can really do it. They have to *feel* that Trump's personally hosed them.

I say all this while the administration might not make it much longer. Impeachment is looming. I still think we're looking at President Pence (shudder) by 2018, if not sooner.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
Already, my local PBS (which is where I pretty much had my first job; where I got my feet wet in studio production; where Steve D'Monster was bred and born) has been putting blurbs on the air, virtually pleading with viewers for their support now more than ever.

But, considering mine is an uber-red state, is that going to happen? Hmm . . . considering this is the same PBS that took a big hit in pledges and local support after parental, religious, and morality groups falsely accused it of spreading LGBT propaganda during the Bush Administration . . . I'm doubtful. :frown:
 

jvcarroll

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
2,001
Already, my local PBS (which is where I pretty much had my first job; where I got my feet wet in studio production; where Steve D'Monster was bred and born) has been putting blurbs on the air, virtually pleading with viewers for their support now more than ever.

But, considering mine is an uber-red state, is that going to happen? Hmm . . . considering this is the same PBS that took a big hit in pledges and local support after parental, religious, and morality groups falsely accused it of spreading LGBT propaganda during the Bush Administration . . . I'm doubtful. :frown:
Sometimes red states rally for things like that even more because their progressives know how much they need it!
 

fuzzygobo

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
5,596
Reaction score
5,072
PBS has always been strapped for cash. And presidents as far back as Nixon have threatened to do away with it. It seemed every ten years would be another cash crisis, yet they always managed to scrape enough funds together to stay afloat.
 
Top