President Donald J. Trump

[PB the Deplorable]

Why not defend DT instead of deflecting attention to Obama and the Clintons when all the blood has been squeezed out of those stones? He's POTUS, not any of them, so why the reluctance to require him to be accountable and disclose his personal finances? That's not unreasonable to expect from any president, whether or not the law requires it. It makes more sense than trusting any politician on blind faith alone.

When you say personal finances, what are you referring to?  His personal tax return only?  The financial statements and tax returns of his corporations too?  How much information is enough - a summary of the consolidated businesses?  A breakdown by each of the individual businesses and properties?  Sources of funds for each?  Every company that provides goods and services?  Would there ever be enough disclosure to satisfy the people who won't be satisfied until he resigns?  Would not each round of disclosure mostly produce calls for more detailed disclosure?

Is it legitimate for a business to not disclose certain confidential information for a variety of reasons?  For example giving intel to competitors


Trump is in a different category from just about everyone else in office.  He isn't a lifetime politician.  Which means he made his money in the private sector.  The main reason for politicians to disclose their finances is to show they aren't selling their positions, or if they are they are putting themselves at further risk by not reporting the income to the IRS.  That is not an issue with Trump - he didn't have a public office to sell access to and favors from.

I don't know what the answer is.  What we shouldn't do is be so draconian as to cause other non-politicians to shy away from running for office.  I think that is part of what the Ds and the Media are doing.  As the Party and mouthpiece for Big Government, they don't want outsiders involved in what they see as their turf.

What I will say is the bigger the government, the more power it takes for itself, the more money it brings in, the more bureaucratic it becomes, the more regulations it issues, the more complex the tax system becomes - the more access to decision makers becomes an imperative for larger companies and other institutions.  The more room for corruption there is, the more it attracts the sociopaths interested only in power and money instead of representing the interests of, and doing the will of, their constituents.

As much of government has become waste and income redistribution, what we really need is to eliminate much of it.  Then most of these problems are eliminated as well.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

When you say personal finances, what are you referring to?  His personal tax return only?  The financial statements and tax returns of his corporations too?  How much information is enough - a summary of the consolidated businesses?  A breakdown by each of the individual businesses and properties?  Sources of funds for each?  Every company that provides goods and services?  Would there ever be enough disclosure to satisfy the people who won't be satisfied until he resigns?  Would not each round of disclosure mostly produce calls for more detailed disclosure?

Is it legitimate for a business to not disclose certain confidential information for a variety of reasons?  For example giving intel to competitors


Trump is in a different category from just about everyone else in office.  He isn't a lifetime politician.  Which means he made his money in the private sector.  The main reason for politicians to disclose their finances is to show they aren't selling their positions, or if they are they are putting themselves at further risk by not reporting the income to the IRS.  That is not as issues with Trump - he didn't have a public office to sell access to and favors from.

I don't know what the answer is.  What we shouldn't do is be so draconian as to cause other non-politicians to shy away from running for office.  I think that is part of what the Ds and the Media are doing.  As the Party and mouthpiece for Big Government, they don't want outsiders involved in what they see as their turf.

What I will say is the bigger the government, the more power it takes for itself, the more money it brings in, the more important access to decision makers becomes, the more room for corruption there is, the more it attracts the sociopaths interested only in power and money instead of representing the interests of, and doing the will of, their constituents.

As much of government is waste and income distribution, what we really need is to eliminate much of it.

I believe elected officials are public servants and representatives of the people who should be held to the highest standards, which obligates them to address any concerns about financial impropriety, whether it be bribery, kickbacks or shady stock and business deals, when asked to do so. It's just common sense to expect the highest ethical standards from employees. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, and that's why employers ask for references and do criminal background checks. 

The same standard should apply to everyone who holds office, elected or otherwise, and DT should not be an exception just because he's not a career politician. Hes work for us now, and he should be accountable to us. What other people allegedly did in the past is up to prosecutors, judges (provided they aren't "fake"), and juries to decide and has no bearing on him.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Down, girl! Behave yourself.

[PB the Deplorable]

I believe elected officials are public servants and representatives of the people who should be held to the highest standards, which obligates them to address any concerns about financial impropriety, whether it be bribery, kickbacks or shady stock and business deals, when asked to do so. It's just common sense to expect the highest ethical standards from employees. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, and that's why employers ask for references and do criminal background checks. 

The same standard should apply to everyone who holds office, elected or otherwise, and DT should not be an exception just because he's not a career politician. Hes work for us now, and he should be accountable to us. What other people allegedly did in the past is up to prosecutors, judges (provided they aren't "fake"), and juries to decide and has no bearing on him.

You didn't answer the question.  What level of disclosure do you think he should provide?

If I were advising him, I would suggest he ask that of the various interested parties before disclosing anything, to ensure they don't just demand ''more'', regardless of what he gives them.  I'd also have him ask them - at the same time, in public - why they showed zero interest in Barry's personal documents or in Hilary's ''Foundation''. 

Let's get all this answered before he attempts to appease these ass-wipes

[albrecht]

I believe elected officials are public servants and representatives of the people who should be held to the highest standards, which obligates them to address any concerns about financial impropriety, whether it be bribery, kickbacks or shady stock and business deals, when asked to do so. It's just common sense to expect the highest ethical standards from employees. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, and that's why employers ask for references and do criminal background checks.  

The same standard should apply to everyone who holds office, elected or otherwise, and DT should not be an exception just because he's not a career politician. Hes work for us now, and he should be accountable to us. What other people allegedly did in the past is up to prosecutors, judges (provided they aren't "fake"), and juries to decide and has no bearing on him.

I agree with you, mostly, but got a lot of chuckles, and even some guffaws, reading those comments! How often has the Left, at least here, said landlords or employers shouldn't have the right to show proof of income, drug-test, or use criminal background checks? Discrimination! No second chances? Profiling! "What you do on your own time!" etc. And, to this day, we aren't supposed to ask for proof of citizenship or residency to vote or get government give-aways? Drug test for Section 8 or EBT? Ha. All of these things, now, you say should be done? If Obama, or likely some others, in offices, elected would not pass a standard background check if one was getting a job a government job or most secure contractors. BUT, because ELECTED, got around the whole 'background' check deal. Heck, considering Obama, or whatever name he is using now, applied to most schools or for a small business loan might be rejected for his lack of documentation and weird, odd discrepancies in it. Yet, he was allowed to be President- without a peep or concern by you for "documentation" or "back ground checks!"  It is funny.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

You didn't answer the question.  What level of disclosure do you think he should provide?

If I were advising him, I would suggest he ask that of the various interested parties before disclosing anything, to ensure they don't just demand ''more'', regardless of what he gives them.  I'd also have him ask them - at the same time, in public - why they showed zero interest in Barry's personal documents or in Hilary's ''Foundation''. 

Let's get all this answered before he attempts to appease these ass-wipes

Christ on a cracker! You just can't help yourself, can you? Now I know what playing Mad Libs in Hell with the damned souls of sinners who had Tourette Syndrome must be like. And you can forget about ever seeing those unwaxed cheerleader outfit pics you inquired about by PM.

[PB the Deplorable]

Christ on a cracker! You just can't help yourself, can you? Now I know what playing Mad Libs in Hell with the damned souls of sinners who had Tourette Syndrome must be like. And you can forget about ever seeing those unwaxed cheerleader outfit pics you inquired about by PM.

So you don't know or don't want to say what level of disclosure you feel is adequate.  Because the Democrat Fake News Media hasn't said.

Let me ask you this.  Being a big supporter of holding these people to the highest standards - I know because of the following post - wouldn't the information be more useful before the election? 

Yet all the people now clamoring for Trump's records were remarkably silent when it came to Hilary's during the campaign.  When all the Fake Polls said she was going to win, and they believed them, they had zero interest in financial disclosure and even covered for her.  Perhaps you can tell me:  why the change?

I believe elected officials are public servants and representatives of the people who should be held to the highest standards, which obligates them to address any concerns about financial impropriety, whether it be bribery, kickbacks or shady stock and business deals, when asked to do so...

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I agree with you, mostly, but got a lot of chuckles, and even some guffaws, reading those comments! How often has the Left, at least here, said landlords or employers shouldn't have the right to show proof of income, drug-test, or use criminal background checks? Discrimination! No second chances? Profiling! "What you do on your own time!" etc. And, to this day, we aren't supposed to ask for proof of citizenship or residency to vote or get government give-aways? Drug test for Section 8 or EBT? Ha. All of these things, now, you say should be done? If Obama, or likely some others, in offices, elected would not pass a standard background check if one was getting a job a government job or most secure contractors. BUT, because ELECTED, got around the whole 'background' check deal. Heck, considering Obama, or whatever name he is using now, applied to most schools or for a small business loan might be rejected for his lack of documentation and weird, odd discrepancies in it. Yet, he was allowed to be President- without a peep or concern by you for "documentation" or "back ground checks!"  It is funny.

Some people call him Maurice, but he speaks of the pompatus of love.

Seriously, though, my only point is that our elected public servants should be required to submit to thorough background checks and pee in a cup upon request as conditions for employment as long as they pass laws requiring the same from their constituents.

[K_Dubb]

Some people call him Maurice, but he speaks of the pompatus of love.

Seriously, though, my only point is that our elected public servants should be required to submit to thorough background checks and pee in a cup upon request as conditions for employment as long as they pass laws requiring the same from their constituents.

Yea make of each an eunuch, as doth the heathen Chinee.

[albrecht]

Some people call him Maurice, but he speaks of the pompatus of love.

Seriously, though, my only point is that our elected public servants should be required to submit to thorough background checks and pee in a cup upon request as conditions for employment as long as they pass laws requiring the same from their constituents.

Ignoring that you ignored my other posts, or even the salient points in this one, I think anyone who gets a salary, loan, grant, or appointment from government, political or hire or contract, should have to pass a background check, monitoring, and even a piss or hair test; depending on position. That includes elected people or those in Section-8 or getting EBT. I want Senators to have random tests also.And the President. You get Federal money- you piss, financial audit, and criminal background check. And citizenship and residency verification. Obviously for cost considerations this would be done for the more powerful, or expensive, offices, commissions, or contracts but still apply, or at least threat and random, for everyone else. And same standards that the IRS, DEA, and local LEO offices use for freezing assets or confiscation of same would apply (frozen/seized without a conviction.) See how quick bureaucrats and politicians act on civil rights then! Much of this, should be for the States though, I'm only speaking for Federal money. At the same time, if a private business or organization, that gets no tax-breaks, loans, grants, etc you can do whatever (local rules apply of course) but no more Federal crimes of discrimination or whatever. If you want to lose market-share, which would likely happen, it is your right. Hands off our property, minds, and life. Get government more "out" but with some obviously things enforced but otherwise, live and let live. True diversity.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

So you don't know or don't want to say what level of disclosure you feel is adequate.  Because the Democrat Fake News Media hasn't said.

Let me ask you this.  Being a big supporter of holding these people to the highest standards - I know because of the following post - wouldn't the information be more useful before the election? 

Yet all the people now clamoring for Trump's records were remarkably silent when it came to Hilary's during the campaign.  When all the Fake Polls said she was going to win, and they believed them, they had zero interest in financial disclosure and even covered for her.  Perhaps you can tell me:  why the change?

As God is my witness I wish I could, because I know you won't rest until I do, but I'm as mystified as you are by what the media chooses to emphasize.

Ask Les Moonves and Jeff Zucker why they shamelessly admitted they were putting ratings ahead of in-depth reporting and analysis by giving DT's campaign events coverage that was extremely disproportionate to that given to the other candidates, especially during the Republican primary. They're the guys whose feet you should be holding to the fire, because I sure don't get paid obscene amounts of money to make ethical decisions for any media conglomerates.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Yea make of each an eunuch, as doth the heathen Chinee.

Darn clever, those heathen Chinee.

[Dr. MD MD]

mystified

I'd say that adequately defines your state of mind. 

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Ignoring that you ignored my other posts, or even the salient points in this one, I think anyone who gets a salary, loan, grant, or appointment from government, political or hire or contract, should have to pass a background check, monitoring, and even a piss or hair test; depending on position. That includes elected people or those in Section-8 or getting EBT. I want Senators to have random tests also.And the President. You get Federal money- you piss, financial audit, and criminal background check. And citizenship and residency verification. Obviously for cost considerations this would be done for the more powerful, or expensive, offices, commissions, or contracts but still apply, or at least threat and random, for everyone else. And same standards that the IRS, DEA, and local LEO offices use for freezing assets or confiscation of same would apply (frozen/seized without a conviction.) See how quick bureaucrats and politicians act on civil rights then! Much of this, should be for the States though, I'm only speaking for Federal money. At the same time, if a private business or organization, that gets no tax-breaks, loans, grants, etc you can do whatever (local rules apply of course) but no more Federal crimes of discrimination or whatever. If you want to lose market-share, which would likely happen, it is your right. Hands off our property, minds, and life. Get government more "out" but with some obviously things enforced but otherwise, live and let live. True diversity.

Sorry for any misunderstanding! I'm still learning abrechtese, although I'm making progress, and I don't have to tell you that the syntax can be tricky and things sometimes get lost in translation. My bad! 

[K_Dubb]

Darn clever, those heathen Chinee.

Oh most prodigious so!

In the scene that ensued
I did not take a hand,
But the floor it was strewed   
Like the leaves on the strand
With the cards that Ah Sin had been hiding,   
In the game he did not understand.

In his sleeves, which were long,
He had twenty-four jacksâ€"
Which was coming it strong,
Yet I state but the facts;
And we found on his nails, which were taper,
What is frequent in tapersâ€"that's wax.

[albrecht]

Sorry for any misunderstanding! I'm still learning abrechtese, although I'm making progress, and I don't have to tell you that the syntax can be tricky and things sometimes get lost in translation. My bad! 

Indeed. Ha. I think everyone should think, better listen..Then think again. .Repeat.  Not to me.though. 

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Oh most prodigious so!

In the scene that ensued
I did not take a hand,
But the floor it was strewed   
Like the leaves on the strand
With the cards that Ah Sin had been hiding,   
In the game he did not understand.

In his sleeves, which were long,
He had twenty-four jacksâ€"
Which was coming it strong,
Yet I state but the facts;
And we found on his nails, which were taper,
What is frequent in tapersâ€"that's wax.

If Bill Nye can travel back in time, he deserves to be called The Science Guy, even if he and Bret Harte hadn't become drinking buddies.

Ah Sin was his name;   
  And I shall not deny   
In regard to the same   
  What that name might imply;          
But his smile it was pensive and childlike,   
  As I frequent remarked to Bill Nye.

[K_Dubb]

If Bill Nye can travel back in time, he deserves to be called The Science Guy, even if he and Bret Harte hadn't become drinking buddies.

Ah Sin was his name;   
  And I shall not deny   
In regard to the same   
  What that name might imply;          
But his smile it was pensive and childlike,   
  As I frequent remarked to Bill Nye.

Haha yeah I laughed at that, too.  It's almost as good as Dan McGrew â€" God! How ghastly she looks through her rouge!  The lady that's known as Lou.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Haha yeah I laughed at that, too.  It's almost as good as Dan McGrew â€" God! How ghastly she looks through her rouge!  The lady that's known as Lou.

But everyone knew her as Nancy.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWKsRlAVVDk

[K_Dubb]

But everyone knew her as Nancy.

Oh lord now I won't read that poem the same.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Oh lord now I won't read that poem the same.

Then you probably shouldn't go to YouTube and check out any of the versions of "Folsom Pinball Blues," particularly this one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNylJ4SGzDE

[Jackstar]

you probably shouldn't go to YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq5lJHSklg0

How am I doing, Robert?

[PB the Deplorable]

As God is my witness I wish I could, because I know you won't rest until I do, but I'm as mystified as you are by what the media chooses to emphasize.

Ask Les Moonves and Jeff Zucker why they shamelessly admitted they were putting ratings ahead of in-depth reporting and analysis by giving DT's campaign events coverage that was extremely disproportionate to that given to the other candidates, especially during the Republican primary. They're the guys whose feet you should be holding to the fire, because I sure don't get paid obscene amounts of money to make ethical decisions for any media conglomerates.

None of this is a mystery at all.

Trump was given all that coverage because 1) Hilary and her allies in Big Media wanted him to win the primaries thinking he would be the easiest for her to beat (they were probably right, but she still lost).  None of the other candidates were really able to get their issues aired.  And 2) Trump's obnoxiousness was good for ratings.

As far as why the insistence on Trump's finances and connections now, and no questions or demands on Obama for eight plus years, or on Mrs Clinton during the campaign and all her years on the national stage, I think we all know the answer to that.

My question was really meant to point out how easily Big Media manipulates people.  Suddenly every Democrat supporter is insistent on the importance of this being revealed by everyone in office, yet for the past eight years and during the campaign Big Media denied it was important for Obama and Mrs Clinton to do so - and all that time the Democrat supporters agreed with that.  That the Democrat supporters goose step along with whatever Big Media tells them is not new.  You may rest 

[GravitySucks]

As God is my witness I wish I could, because I know you won't rest until I do, but I'm as mystified as you are by what the media chooses to emphasize.

Ask Les Moonves and Jeff Zucker why they shamelessly admitted they were putting ratings ahead of in-depth reporting and analysis by giving DT's campaign events coverage that was extremely disproportionate to that given to the other candidates, especially during the Republican primary. They're the guys whose feet you should be holding to the fire, because I sure don't get paid obscene amounts of money to make ethical decisions for any media conglomerates.

Because Hillary told them to cover Trump and not the other candidates. She wanted Trump to be the candidate and the MSM went with her marching orders.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Because Hillary told them to cover Trump and not the other candidates. She wanted Trump to be the candidate and the MSM went with her marching orders.

Don't blame me. I voted for Gar. 

[GravitySucks]

Don't blame me. I voted for Gar. 

Hotdogs, hamburgers, spaghetti and meatballs!!!

[Jackstar]

Hotdogs, hamburgers, spaghetti and meatballs!!!

I am frankly embarrassed that you represent the best that my military has to offer.

Go fuck yourself on YouTube and then gas yourself there.

No, I am not kidding.

Jews.

[Jackstar]

Jews.

Oh, wait, nevermind, it's cool: they're black.


2112, BITCHES

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQtlgXqe4aU