- Joined
- Sep 15, 2012
- Messages
- 29,290
- Reaction score
- 10,233
- Location
- Columbus, OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Not to use the Executive Branch of our government to peddle Ivanka's garbage.
I guess there's no freedom of speech?
I am fine with the show no mercy as long as that also goes for Hillary.
No complaining from here on out about anything but justice being served properly. Good for the goose, good for ol thunder-thighs herself. Right?
Geeze. This is what our lawmakers are spending their time on? They have nothing more important that requires their attention?
Hey, mainstream media. Here's a bit of advice for you.
Nobody cares one iota about this non-story. Nobody. You're wetting yourselves over something that is so incredibly irrelevant, you're just proving Trump's point about you more and more. People care about lots of important things, but you won't cover that stuff. No, you're obsessed with Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom's. THAT is why no one respects you.
LOL, are you going to step in every bear trap out there?
I think the reason for concern here is that there was speculation prior to inauguration that Trump and his administrators would use his position as president to promote his businesses. There has been some evidence that he plans to do exactly that.
Hey, mainstream media. Here's a bit of advice for you.
Nobody cares one iota about this non-story. Nobody. You're wetting yourselves over something that is so incredibly irrelevant, you're just proving Trump's point about you more and more. People care about lots of important things, but you won't cover that stuff. No, you're obsessed with Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom's. THAT is why no one respects you.
LOL, are you going to step in every bear trap out there?
LOL... No, government employees cannot use their official government position to pimp private companies.
See page 601 and 602 here
And I think that concern is over-blown. I prefer the Clinton standard. It's okay to rent out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign and personal donations. Selling it outright and having it removed from the building is over the line.
However, I believe Kellyanne is not going to be a long-term employee, so I'm not overly concerned about her off the cuff remark. When she takes some action with forethought to the end you describe, I'll be right there with ya.
I get what you're saying, but I think it is important to set a precedent. Congress needs to make an example by saying, "This may not be a huge deal, but we're going to tell you right now that we will not tolerate it." If they let it slide, it will only become more blatant. Trump already publicly shamed Nordstrom's for cancelling Ivanka's clothing line, even though sales were down 25 percent. As the self-proclaimed best businessman in the history of the universe, he should understand that if a product is losing money, you don't continue to throw money at it. But, that's beside the point. It wasn't any of his business to use his position as POTUS to make those statements. It was extremely "unethical" which is where the outrage lies.
Okay. Make a really, really big deal out of it. :coffeepap
I don't have any problem with congress telling them to watch it. I just don't think it rises to the level of outrage expressed by some. I think that Conway is disappointing in her remark - the possibility that Trump could exploit his position for personal gain has been raised, so she should be more circumspect in her remarks with that concern already expressed. With regard to Nordstom, I expect Trump is just being a father. He's allowed to do that.
Hey, mainstream media. Here's a bit of advice for you.
Nobody cares one iota about this non-story. Nobody. You're wetting yourselves over something that is so incredibly irrelevant, you're just proving Trump's point about you more and more. People care about lots of important things, but you won't cover that stuff. No, you're obsessed with Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom's. THAT is why no one respects you.
LOL, are you going to step in every bear trap out there?
I don't have any problem with congress telling them to watch it. I just don't think it rises to the level of outrage expressed by some. I think that Conway is disappointing in her remark - the possibility that Trump could exploit his position for personal gain has been raised, so she should be more circumspect in her remarks with that concern already expressed. With regard to Nordstom, I expect Trump is just being a father. He's allowed to do that.
You can ignore it. I don't expect anything less from Trump devotees. The people tasked with managing ethics violations aren't ignoring it, nor should they. The rules are crystal clear, and she broke them.
I'll bet you wouldn't make a big deal out of Valerie Jarrett telling people to buy from a company owned by Obama's daughter while standing in front of the "Office of the POTUS" sign either, and make the suggestion that everyone just ignore it.
I'm not a Trump devotee. My vote was cast very reluctantly. But, have it your way and boil her in oil. Conway doesn't concern me.
Valerie Jarrett was largely ignored by the media and Congress anyway. I didn't say Conway's comments were great, good, or anything of that nature, but if you want to go over that hyperbolic cliff, don't let me stop you. Right now I give a whole lot more of a damn about what Trump's foreign policy is going to look like that what Conway says about Ivanka Trump's goodies. I'm content to let the Ethics Committee justify their existence.
Fact is he's no longer just a "father" and should act the role of being POTUS. There can no longer be a separation between Trump the person and Trump the leader of the country. When he speaks, no matter on what platform or which Twitter account, he just IS speaking as POTUS. He might be "allowed" but it's not acceptable for the POTUS to bully private companies from his official position as POTUS, which is what he did.
Fact is he's no longer just a "father" and should act the role of being POTUS. There can no longer be a separation between Trump the person and Trump the leader of the country. When he speaks, no matter on what platform or which Twitter account, he just IS speaking as POTUS. He might be "allowed" but it's not acceptable for the POTUS to bully private companies from his official position as POTUS, which is what he did.
You suggested her clear and non-debatable ethics violation should be ignored.
No, I suggested some are making a huge deal out of something not so significant.
I guarantee you wouldn't say that about Jarrett.
The two situations aren't congruent in any way to start with, but during her tenure, I had very little to say about Jarret anyway.
If you have no problem with ethics violations in the White House, then you'll have an easier time the next 4 years than those of us with an expectation of ethics in the WH will.
Again, I didn't say I had no problem. I said I don't believe this instance is as egregious as you claim it is. Did you take a righteous indignation pill this morning?
Show no mercy.
No, I suggested some are making a huge deal out of something not so significant.
The two situations aren't congruent in any way to start with, but during her tenure, I had very little to say about Jarret anyway.
Again, I didn't say I had no problem. I said I don't believe this instance is as egregious as you claim it is. Did you take a righteous indignation pill this morning?
Sorry but there is a separation. I don't like Trump's bullying tactics at all, but he'll be a father for life and he'll be president for a number of years only. It sounds odd with regard to Trump, but just because he's the president doesn't mean he has to sacrifice the average humanity he shares with the rest of us. He may need to find better ways to express himself - and I don't hold out much hope in that regard - but I'll allow him his fatherhood. You don't have to. I do. It's my nature.
Nobody cares, well, except Jason Chaffetz and the Ethics Committee, who is supposed to be ensuring that the office of POTUS doesn't violate ethics requirements. They care, as they should. Actually a lot of us care about it as well. I didn't like the ACA because I believed it was out of line for the President to require citizens to purchase a third party good or service, thereby picking favorites and using his office to do so. I didn't like Obama out there pushing the green cars on us and bribing people to turn in their old cars and get money for buying energy efficient cars. Some of us have integrity and high expectations for the people in the office of the President.
I get it, but this is silly. How is Kellyanne Conway financially benefitting from this? She's not.
This was an off-hand cutesy remark meant for sarcasm. It wasn't an attempt to financially gain from a political position. By the way, lots of senators and representatives have used their office to gain financially over the years in an actual sense. This is not that.
Some people do care about a senior advisor using her official position to pimp a family business. It's not a big problem, and wouldn't it be great if that was the only issue arising yesterday, but it needed to be addressed and was. Thankfully, there is room for lots of stories online and in print. It's actually possible to devote a story about this AND stuff like Flynn lying about his Russia contacts, which was also in the news yesterday. I know because I saw both stories! Hard to believe it's possible - TWO stories on two different subjects (actually thousands of them on thousands of subjects) - but it happened!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?