2020 G-7 Summit Will Be At Doral

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (162 posts)

91
GA Andersonposted 3 years ago
Whooeee! I love it. The Democrats are going to have a caniption fit.

Acting Chief-of-staff Mulvany announced and explained this decision at a press conference today.

Now, I have to innocently and facetiously ask what is the president's message?

GA
reply report
1. 90
  IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  That you love it is sad.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No matter the reason I love it?
  
  GA
  reply report
  90
  IslandBitesposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  
  Have fun.
  reply report
2. 0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The Democrats? How about anyone who respects the Constitution?
  
  Can Trump be any more obvious with violating the emoluments clause?
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Does that mean you are valuing prestige as an emolument?
  
  GA
  reply report
3. 91
  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Mulvaney also announced that the call with Ukraine was indeed a quid pro quo. Thoughts?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, Mulvaney gave the Impeachment Inquiry proof of a quid pro quo today even as Trump was trying to save his ass with the Turkey invasion. Face it, Trump has a gang of idiots running our country.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The dumbest and most sociopathic bunch of low-lifes can still dupe the 40%. Wow.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  But he didn't admit it as a quid pro quo relative to election interference.
  
  GA
  reply report
4. 79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure how one can answer your question. No one knows what the president is thinking from one moment to the next. Has he tweeted on the subject as of yet?
  
  Part of his agenda was to bring and keep money in America. Could his message be he feels he will be saving taxpayers money by having the G7 at Doral? It's been reported Doral would not profit monetarily and cost less than the 12 others that were looked at. Doral was the also the best fit in regards to not only cost but the property would be easier to secure the safety of diplomates. Plus the accommodations would allow private villas to accommodate each county's guests providing privacy.
  
  Not sure if this would be an emolument problem? I will leave that up to all the legal touts. I am sure of one thing if it does pose an emolument problem, and it can be proven to do so fret not we the taxpayers will be allowed to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
  
  Ultimately this is a sticky situation, and not sure one can assign a message to his madness... His message just may just be very simple. He may just want to show off a beautiful American property and providing a fabulous visit to America's guests. Too simple is it not? Well, I have opened up some food for thought with nothing but my views, my opinion. I will be interested in other views on the subject.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  And Doral comes with free bed bugs in every room. This should please the world leaders.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  As you frequently say, 'We are all entitled to our opinions.' Mine is that this was a very purposeful act of distraction and arrogance.
  
  It seems even his former buddy Scarimucci(?) sees it that way also. In an interview, he called it Trump being Trump - "Big Footing," (as in the unproven Big Foot sightings), the issue to distract from another real issue.
  
  My point was that, (because I don't see any illegality in the decision), this Doral thing is small potatoes. I think there are more real and more important issues, (like the Ukraine thing), to be focused on. Yet here they are, screaming about an, (yet another?), ethics issue. Do the Democrats really need more of those arrows in their quiver?
  
  If I were a Democrat my response would be to just shake my head in bewilderment that it never seems to end and get back to the more important business of the Ukraine issue.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  If I were a Republican I'd be calling for impeachment. Or, like my husband, would abandon a party that would support such a corrupt, incompetent POS.
  
  If....
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  There you go mincing words again. It is hard to tell how you really feel. ;-)
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  That was me holding back. ;-)
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "purposeful act of distraction and arrogance." Oh yes, that and more. He is a pro at turning the media in the direction he hopes them to travel, along with the Dem's and his base.
  
  Yes, I agree the Dem's would be smart to focus on their impeachment inquiry and Ukraine and let this one pass with good speed. I have given up predicting when it comes to Trump. I will predict his win in 2020, if nothing too drastic comes up down the road.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Will Trump take notice of the Democrat's screams and back off, choosing a different location? One that costs far more, with far more security necessary, and then "leak" the extra dollars spent as "Look what the Democrats forced us to spend that we didn't need to!")?
  
  Just a thought...
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Since when does Trump care about the Democrats' screams? He has already backed off, but it was because of Republican protests, not Dems.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  As usual you missed the entire thought train. It was not about trashing Trump; it was about a possible strategy he might be using to show Democrats care more about harming his presidency than they do about running the country properly.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, okay. Glad to see he develops strategies for the really important things like that.
  
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It's the way of politics. Just like the second attempt to find enough dirt to impeach him; politics all the way without regard to the country, truth or justice.
  
  At least (if that IS his plan) he will have facts and figures to support him, not the word of a "whistleblower" that never witnessed anything at all.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  So how do you know the whistleblower "never witnessed anything at all," Dan? I didn't realize you had access to such closely protected info.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Randy, have you read the transcript?
  Very first line --- " n the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. "
  
  He gives no first-hand information on what so ever...
  
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 773047002/
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The intel inspector general confirmed he/she had first-hand knowledge and confirmed what he/she said from the people who gave additional information.
  
  The letter doesn't say that he/she has no first-hand knowledge. It says "most" of the the information came from other sources who the inspector general interviewed for confirmation.
  reply report
  64
  dianetrotterposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not only that, the ones that are speaking out now, from first hand knowledge, are probably among the government officials the whistleblower is speaking of. the fuller brush guy (why does his name escape me) shows he has character. He mau love war but he has a sense of right and wrong.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Are you speaking of Bolton, Diane? And his mustache? Yes, even Bolton knew Trump had gone too far this time.
  report
  64
  dianetrotterposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  How could I forget his name???? Yeeeeeh! That's him. Even Bolton knew he was corrupt. Interesting that he took the position thinking he would have power. Like Rick Wilson's book explains, "Everything Trump Touches Dies!"
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes at one point thein the transcript the WB did cmake the claim ---
  
  " I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues' accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another"
  
  I am aware the IG questioned a second person that claims to have first-hand info on the call. Although I have not heard of an
  official complaint being filed, only that the firm that is handling the first complaint is handling the second complaint that does claim to have first-hand info.
  
  "WASHINGTON — An intelligence official with “firsthand knowledge” has provided information related to President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and is now protected from retaliation as a whistle-blower, lawyers representing the official said on Sunday, confirming that a second individual has come forward in the matter.
  
  Much is unknown about the official, who has been interviewed by the intelligence community’s inspector general but has not filed a formal complaint."
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/us/p … raine.html
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/us/p … raine.html
  
  The complaint will hold water if the person files a WB complaint, otherwise, not sure where it will go?
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm . . . you might be right. Since Doral has now been nixed we will have the opportunity to see if your "thought" has merit.
  
  GA
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I believe the bedbug infestation at Doral may have played a significant role in the decision, GA. Imagine the world leaders with bites all over their bodies after the first night there. Could cause another war....
  reply report
5. 60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Your hatred of Democrats says everything about you.
  
  The point is that the decision is corrupt. That you are okay with corruption says a lot about you. If you don't think it's corrupt, that also says a lot about you.
  
  You need to stop hating Democrats and start some deep inner resear h to question your own values.
  reply report
6. 79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the G7 will not be held at Doral... What were the president's intentions, what was his message? From what I have learned from a few other more conservative places I join in -- Many are pleased he dropped the offer, but also upset and discussed that we have to pay for the party. Sort of nose to spite the face attitude. Nothing gets the base more ginned than something that just makes no sense. I would say Trump's message reached the right ears. Just saying
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I hear what you are saying Sharlee. I am beginning to think this particular "shiny thing" might be a win-win for President Trump.
  
  It definitely put the Democrat reactions in the spotlight, and now with its cancellation, they are left empty-handed. It also gave his base something to say "Amen" to when he says things like he did today to reporters about "doing it for free," and since it was cancelled I think it will fade to a non-issue--either way--for Independents and Moderates.
  
  I am thinking Wilderness might have a point. When a site is selected, I bet the costs will be promoted as a major news story.
  
  GA
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The only thing it exposed is that people like you believe Trump's lies that he wasn't going to get anything of value by promoting his facilities. And Florida in June would be like hosting the G7 in Minneapolis in the heart of winter. Doubt that was going to be such a great experience for world leaders.
  
  And that's great that Trump supporters are so worried about ridiculous government spending, now all you have to do is have Trump skip a few golf trips, considering that cost is equal to 108 million or about 30 years of presidential salary.
  
  Your selective rage on that topic is comical.
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  
  Truly astounding.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  GA, yes at each and every Rally Trump will remind his crowds that the G7 would have been free, but will also remind them they will now foot the bill. One never knows they may even come up with a chant? The Dem's have a tiger by the tail, funny they just don't comprehend that.
  
  I have many liberal friends and family, my own little finger on the pulse so to say. This latest Doral stunt has them split. Most stating free is always good...
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, is this like I won't have time to golf? $108 million in taxpayer funded golf later, with portions of that going to his own businesses...
  
  The fact that you believe his claim of free only proves that you're gullible and that those at his rallies don't have a grasp on what Trump says versus what Trump actually does.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I did not indicate I believed Trump's statement to pay for the G7? I did not indicate I thought he would or would not pay for the G7. So why you find you have to call me gullible is beyond me... I was commenting on a specific subject. He asked what did we think the message was Trump was sending? The message GA asked way back before this thread turned to a free for all.
  
  I am not going to discuss Trump's golfing expenses. If you hope to discuss that subject post a thread on the subject.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Fact - Trump said he would not have time to golf.
  Fact - Trump has cost the US government over $100 million is expenses for golfing, with portions of that going to his own businesses.
  
  Fact - Trump lied about not golfing and is personally profiting from his position.
  
  Denial - You think he would not do this again with the G7.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I am still realling from your last comment where you make claims about my believing Trump would pay for the G7. Calling me gullible. here is my comment which statement indicates I claimed Trump would pay for the G7?
  
  "GA, yes at each and every Rally Trump will remind his crowds that the G7 would have been free, but will also remind them they will now foot the bill. One never knows they may even come up with a chant? The Dem's have a tiger by the tail, funny they just don't comprehend that.
  
  I have many liberal friends and family, my own little finger on the pulse so to say. This latest Doral stunt has them split. Most stating free is always good..." Let's clear this up before moving on. My head does not spin as quickly as yours... Please slow down and clear this up...
  
  Your comments are bordering on baiting... L
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  First off, what is realling? Did you mean reeling?
  
  When one covers an expense, I believe that is called paying for things. That would make the event free, a word you brought up, not myself or Randy.
  
  And my pointing out that Trump made a claim that there would be no golf expenses if people like you voted for him, and now he has cost the government over $100 million dollars, shows that you are willing to believe his falsehoods about not using his position to benefit himself.
  
  Any claim he makes about at cost or 'free' as you mention should not be trusted, except by the gullible.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Trump told over 20 lies during his tirade yesterday. He's losing it. Imagine him before Congress having to answer questions he doesn't want to. He'll resign before that happens....
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I heard at least one out and out lie...He claimed 500 babies were killed due to Obama not enforcing his red line. It was actually over 500, 000 men, women and children. Man, that is a doozy I would say.
  
  Did I find it very curious no one brought up this out and out lie? No, I did not, it is very poor quality sheep food... But it's the one lie that is factual out of the entire list. Shame it was not listed. The rest was as always a poor representation of twisting Trump's words.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Your skewering of facts is amazing. Obama's red line was in reference to violating international law and Assad's use of chemical weapons. Putting the entirety of the deaths from their civil war on him is ridiculous, even for an Obama hater like you.
  
  And when Obama went to Congress to get approval for military action that, according to Susan Rice, might last for longer than the 60 days the War Powers Act grants to effectively counter Assad, Congress had no stomach for action. Yet, you make no mention of their culpability in Syria ever, clearly showing how much you just hate Obama.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  DOH!!!
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure you read the ongoing conversation I was having with GA? We have been discussing his original question. "Now, I have to innocently and facetiously ask what is the president's message?"
  
  I was simply staying that his message just may have been meant to gin up his base, And as I said above it just may have turned out as he believed it would. ---- each and every Rally Trump will remind his crowds that the G7 would have been free or at cost, but will also remind them they will now foot the bill.
  
  I have no argument or even the knowledge of the cost of what the G7 would have cost at full price or at cost. One could not compare unless we knew the new venue where it will be held. I might add at cost might have been less expensive if I wanted to speculate. Which I don't, but you can bet many in his base will.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure you read the ongoing conversation I was having with GA? We have been discussing his original question. "Now, I have to innocently and facetiously ask what is the president's message?"
  
  I was simply staying that his message just may have been meant to gin up his base, And as I said above it just may have turned out as he believed it would. ---- each and every Rally Trump will remind his crowds that the G7 would have been free or at cost, but will also remind them they will now foot the bill.
  
  I have been making a good attempt to stay on the subject. What may have been in Trump's mind when he proposed Doral. I would pretty much surmise he knew he would cause hysteria on the left. Which he did. Maybe that was his message... Whatever his reason, he certainly has people thinking in all directions. LOL
  reply report
  91
  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Remember when the Right losing its mind over how much Obama played golf?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and I also remember Trump saying he'd be too busy running the country to play golf. His base ignores his lies as they always will...
  reply report
  91
  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  And remember when the Right claimed Obama was a Muslim and wasn't born in the U.S.? And now they claim Trump is persecuted? You reap what you sow.
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  One only has to follow his facebook page to check out his daily schedule. You might be surprised by what he accomplishes on most days.
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I do... I chalk it up to "right back at you". I could care less about what vacations president takes, none of them.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  At cost is not free, people. Even at cost it would be very expensive. What are you people thinking?
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure you read the ongoing conversation I was having with GA? We have been discussing his original question. "Now, I have to innocently and facetiously ask what is the president's message?"
  
  I was simply staying that his message just may have been meant to gin up his base, And as I said above it just may have turned out as he believed it would. ---- each and every Rally Trump will remind his crowds that the G7 would have been free or at cost, but will also remind them they will now foot the bill.
  
  I have no argument or even the knowledge of the cost of what the G7 would have cost at full price or at cost. One could not compare unless we knew the new venue where it will be held. I might add at cost might have been less expensive if I wanted to speculate. Which I don't, but you can bet many in his base will.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You are one of his base, Shar! Trump isn't bright enough to keep his mouth shut, but his base will try to explain every lie he tells as an innocent blunder or a brilliant move.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't consider myself part of his base. He certainly was bright enough to win the presidency. I think you underestimate his ability in regards to politicking. I sit back and view from the sidelines, and yes sometimes he makes epic blunders, but sometimes he calculates what his blunders will produce, rhetoric, base support. He is very good at putting down well-laid traps.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Just out of curiosity, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very liberal and 10 being very conservative, how would you rate yourself?
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I would rate myself as a 6 or 7.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I admit I'm surprised. I'm a 5 on social policy and 7 on fiscal policy.
  
  Putting them together makes me a 6 -- about the same as you.
  
  But I don't think our various disagreements have been much about policy. They have been mostly about Trump.
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I would rate you a 2 on social policy and a 4 on fiscal policy.
  
  It is interesting that you think yourself a centrist, I doubt many posters on here would agree with that, unless they are extreme Left.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You have no clue about my policy positions because you are too busy venting at me and everyone else who doesn't idolize Trump.
  
  That's how you judge everyone. If they love Trump, they are brilliant. If they don't love Trump, they are evil liberals.
  
  As someone on the extreme right, of course you think everyone who doesn't agree with you and Trump is a leftist.
  report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I take that back, I'd rate you a 1 on social policy, as no one I have interacted with anywhere is more judgemental, quick to label, and cemented in their extremely liberal viewpoints.
  report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you can make me a -12. Or a -342!
  
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I think the keyboard is a very poor indicator of one's true political views or getting to realize someone's full thoughts.
  report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I get your point. But I can post my beliefs about social and fiscal policy on here 100 times, and someone like Ken will ignore them and yell stuff that has nothing to do with what I believe because he simply wants to vent.
  
  It's much easier in his mind to call me a liberal, leftist, etc. because I don't adore Trump, and leave it at that. It doesn't require any thinking.
  
  God forbid that he would actually ask me a specific question about a socal or fiscal policy. That's too hard for him and his kind to do.
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  " But I can post my beliefs about social and fiscal policy on here 100 times, and someone like --- will ignore them"
  
  We are all guilty of this, and I can see why it creates great problems in communication, and ultimately frustration.
  
  And yes, sometimes it's much easier to call names or deflect than to calmly explain one's opinion or to delve into the opposing opinion while keeping one's temperament in check.
  
  We all do it ("That's too hard for him and his kind to do.") see my point.
  
  I sum it up as fight or flight... It would be nice to be more civil, it could even be catchy.
  report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Good points, Shar. That said, I posted a civil question to you about where you sit on the political spectrum. You gave me a civil response.
  
  He jumped in with both fists like he usually does to start a fight. I am civil to people who are civil. I'm not civil to bullies.
  
  I stand behind "That's too hard for him and his kind to do" because it is accurate and because being meek only encourages more verbal abuse. Fighting back when attacked is part of real life.
  
  If he has a civil question or comment for me, I will gladly respond in a civil manner.
  report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Is that a sense of humor I detect?
  
  Damn, gonna have to put you back up to 2 then.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, you two, you're both 10s in my book, and my word is final.
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  well said
  report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Just making light of the silly diatribe.
  report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I would think we have some political thoughts in common. I was raised by two very conservative people. So I lean to the right at this point in my life. I have been all over the spectrum.
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
Why do you love it? Are you channeling Ed, aka ahorseback?
reply report
1. 91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's because I have a bag of marshmallows that was getting stale. Now there is sure to be a fire I can roast them on.
  
  GA
  reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 3 years ago
They'll be a bunch happy on the Right as they don't care at all about the Emoluments Clause or the criminality of the cretin.
reply report
91
GA Andersonposted 3 years ago
The comments, so far, prove I was right. A caniption fit.

Sad . . .
Channeling Ed . . .
Emoluments clause . . .
Duped sociopathic bunch of low-lifes . . .
Respect the Constitution . . .

Yet no one answered my innocent "message" question.

How about some more gas for the fire . . .

But, but, they are doing it at cost, no profit.
It is an ideal location that would have been anyone's first choice if it didn't have the Trump connection.

Here is what I think is sad - the lure of shiny objects. I can't imagine Pres. Trump as a fisherman, but it looks like he would be a good one. Or, at least a good lure maker.

GA
reply report
1. 64
  dianetrotterposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  He says he won't make anything on it. Bull! He may not make a profit. Who knows. However, there are so-called fixed cost. Fixed costs go on whether you have business or not. The group that shows up will contribute, at least, to the fixed costs: mortgage, salaries and taxes.
  
  So the business will subsidize his financial obligations.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Diane. It looks like you and Randy should put your heads together to prove Pres. Trump did this to make money. (only jokingly sarcastic, not mean sarcastic ;-))
  
  Between his seasonal occupancy logic and your fixed costs, it seems Trump might get nailed for making money off of this after all.
  
  GA
  reply report
91
GA Andersonposted 3 years ago
Folks, from the looks of your comments, none of you read what was said in the OP, you just reflexively reacted to the thought that you thought was there.

GA
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm, so you "love" that Trump is thumbing his nose at those who still believe ethics in government is a principle worth saving.
  
  I'm saddened, just like Islandbites, because you pretend to not enjoy the fray, even to be above the fray, yet here you are, cheering on a clear ethical violation because....because it bothers people?
  
  Sorry, but yuck.
  reply report
2. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Does the news that June is the worst month for Doral having guests in the resort make a difference, Gus? It would remain otherwise deserted if Trump didn't fill it with foreign dignitaries, like his other failing properties are depending on now. This is obvious criminality, and I'm calling it such. Get your yuks though!
  reply report
  64
  dianetrotterposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It definitely impacts fixed costs.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I am getting my "yuks" Randy. Just look how far the yeah buts . . . are going. Now you are using seasonal occupancy as a justification and proof of your charge.
  
  GA
  reply report
3. 80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  That's right up there with the realization that water is wet.
  reply report
91
GA Andersonposted 3 years ago
First things first; I do always enjoy the "fray." Why would I participate in these forums if I didn't? Surely you don't think that I think I have the answers and wisdom to know better than everyone else. (at least I hope you don't) Also, I have never thought I was "above the fray," I just make an effort to choose how deep into the mud I will go.

You are also wrong to think that I don't think ethics are important. I do, and I think this location choice was politically unethical, but that was not the point of my OP.

I don't think he "thumbed his nose" at anyone, I think it was an in-your-face verticle digit.

But you did get the "bothers people" part right. I think he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what reaction it would draw from the Democrats.

I also think that there is nothing illegal about his choice. With no monetary profits made the only emoluments charge will be one of a profit of prestige. That might fly in the Court of Congress and political circles and forums, but I don't think it will work in the court of public opinion. Especially when it seems the accommodations of the facility are excellently suited for the event and would have been an applauded choice if there was no Trump connection.

I would bet that in the public of Moderates and Independents it draws no more than a shake of their head, but for anti-Trumpers, it is just one more nail in his coffin, one more outrage, one more shiny thing to chase.

You can certainly criticize him for an apparent unethical action, (perhaps like Huner Biden's choice can appear to be unethical?), but I don't think you can prove it is an illegally unethical action.

The only thing that saved the Democrats from more public screaming about this choice was the meatier tidbit about quid pro quo that Mulvany tossed out in the same announcement.

GA
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not invested enough to do the research, but I would be willing to bet he violated the law. Government entities are required to get multiple bids for venues or projects that use taxpayer money and then select the most suitable and cost effective one.
  
  Did that happen? I don't think so.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You could be right PrettyPanther, but, like you, I am not that invested in this issue either. However, I am sure that we will hear about it if that is a legitimate concern.
  
  If there is some technical illegality then he deserves what he gets for his actions.
  
  GA
  reply report
  91
  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, so I see, GA. You're just rolling that hand grenade into the liberal's tent?
  
  I see it as an unethical choice. If they're not making any money, then it's probably not illegal, but I wish we had a President who realized that the appearance of impropriety is usually a good reason not to do something.
  
  Also, if I was him, I'd do this as sort of a marketing thing. While they may not make any money, the exposure has value, so I think that's a good reason not to do it and why it may violate the law.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You nailed me Crankalicious. I did roll that hand grenade. But I couldn't resist. The outcome was so predictable.
  
  Of course, I think it was an unethical choice, but, with the information I have so far, I do not think it was an illegal choice.
  
  My point was that this was Trump at his most Trunpiest. I think he knew the firestorm he would create, and I think he knew that there was nothing illegal about it, (nothing in the mind of a non-Democrat or political partisan - or legitimate court of law) - he just tossed out another shiny lure to bait the Democrats.
  
  Except for Mulvaney's press conference comments, this latest shiny lure would have taken the attention off of the Ukraine thing for at least a couple of news cycles.
  
  As painful as it may be for some to admit, I think he deserves some credit for knowing which manipulation buttons to push - and when to push them.
  
  GA
  reply report
2. 64
  dianetrotterposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  GA, it is much more complicated than the quid quo pro. My head is spinning. There is a Russian mobster that the US has been trying to extradiate to the US. https://www.propublica.org/ This involves the Trump super pact which one of the arrested mobsters was handling as well as Fox attorney commentators, the De Genovas.
  
  The gangster did provide evidence on Biden. The State Department would not let him in. Rudy G. went to the WH for help and still couldn't get him in. Doral is a distraction or a sidebar.
  
  I'm going to have to sketch story boards to keep up with this.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting article Diane. Thanks.
  
  ps. Better get a big piece of poster board for that storyboard - you will need the space ;-)
  
  GA
  reply report
3. 79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "I would bet that in the public of Moderates and Independents it draws no more than a shake of their head, but for anti-Trumpers, it is just one more nail in his coffin, one more outrage, one more shiny thing to chase.'
  
  This statement jumped out at me, made me really think about your question "what is the president's message?" One more nail in the coffin, but whose coffin? Trump keeps his base well aware of Dem's aptitude to become hysterical over shiny objects. He is well aware his base also looks at these hyper reactions as nonsensical. Does all the public screaming give Trump another good opportunity to not only gin up the base but also have some on the fringe looking once again at the hysterical left drumming up more controversy to get rid of a duly elected president? The general public appears or should I say might be tired of all the hype, as well as the gridlock it is causing in Washington.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The general public is indeed weary of all the attempts by your leader to further enrich himself on his failing properties by filling them up off govt funds. Why is this so hard for those on the right to see?
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  The city council of my little town just got all up in arms over a $160 check that was written to a contractor for services at our local visitor's center, which I manage. Why? Because the check was made out to "S. [last name]." My name is " Sandra [same last name]," so they assumed I paid myself. They were very concerned until they found out it was "Sam [same last name.]"
  
  People don't think it's okay for government officials to enrich themselves with taxpayer money, no matter how small. It's wrong.
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  This is a great way to illustrate the point. I'm sure that wasn't much fun for you though.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, a little stressful but that has been the case all along with this particular city council. I gave my notice just before we left on our three-week vacation and cruise, which allowed me to freely enjoy it. Our current council is driven by petty, small-minded control freaks who are doing real damage to many long-standing organizations in our community. It's pretty sad.
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  That is a shame. I hate to hear these stories. Our city has had two officials put in prison this past year. The mayor, and the city Sanitary Department are still being investigated by the FBI for various wrong-doings, generally stealing from taxpayers. We have a moral hole and a level-headed leader is needed to even attempt to right our flailing ship.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I see your point Sharlee, but I don't think his base needs ginning up, and rather than influence some fence-sitters in his favor, I think his actions will push them away. Because I agree with you, most of us are tired of this day-in-day-out political circus we are bombarded with.
  
  We don't have time to consider the serious issues because Trump casts out another shiny lure each day. And then we have to watch the anti-Trumpers go chasing after it like the dog track racers chasing the mechanical rabbit.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You've made me once again have to rethink my comment. You have a valid point in regard to those on the fence. One just never knows. The circus atmosphere is getting old, and tiring.
  
  What serious issues? Do we still have problems that need solving? Being sarcastic....
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  GA, your consistent defense of Trump places you to the right of Republican leadership, which means far right.
  
  I don't think anti-Trumpers are like dumb dogs who chase after shiny lures. In fact, they seem to have quite a bit of respect for the law.
  
  It's also wrong for us to ignore many of Trump's unethical and illegal actions because we are tired of them.
  
  But I'm sure Trump and Trump lovers would like us to.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "It's also wrong for us to ignore many of Trump's unethical and illegal actions because we are tired of them."
  
  It does not appear the Dem/Congress is ignoring what they feel are crimes? They have opened an investigation/inquiry. However, so far President Trump has not been charged with anything. It might be wise to see what the inquiry turns up before condemning Trump with crimes that have gone unproven to date. If there are crimes or misdemeanors I am sure the Dem's inquiry will find them. However, I think it unethical to charge anyone of a crime and then search for evidence. This inquiry is a day late and a buck short... They have had three years to pin something on him, just will not happen. It seems foolish and a waste of time. It does keep the Dem's in the news. However, I think it will, in the end, backfire, like all their other ploys. They are playing a very risky game.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I was referring to GA's previous statements and not the Democrats.
  
  Trump's own people have already pinned plenty on him. They are taking him down much more than the Democrats.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure if anyone is bringing him down? I would think the election will speak volumes.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Wow.
  
  And Wow!
  
  You don't get that the Dems just don't know where to start - the the problems with Trump are so immense that they cannot find a beginning? That Trump is so atypical that there is nothing in the rule book that even begins to bring an exact charge against him.
  
  Any sane, logical, well adapted person can see he is a criminal.
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  They have had three years to "start", and I hesitate to say they will have 4 more. It does not bode well for the Dem's to not be able to back up all of what Trump has been accused of. If any of it's true, it will be easy to prove. If not they should not have traveled down that path. One should not be charged with a crime without proof. This appears to be a political ploy, that will end badly. Once again another waiting game. Really not a subject to discuss too deeply, it's going to end with one side or the other with lots of egg on their faces.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It's not that it can't be proven.
  
  There are several things in the way.
  
  1. Most liberals (I'm a progressive) are weak-minded. They sort of have ideals, but they are of the sort "Don't hit the bully - because then you're the same as the bully." As a progressive, I'm very into hitting bullies hard, because that's the only way to get rid of the bully.
  
  2. Corruption is so rife in the American system that most politicians (Democratic and Republican) cannot accuse someone of something without having three fingers pointing back at them. So they are covering their butts by not pointing too sharply. This is why AOC is so refreshing. Then, again, she is a progressive. Progressives kick butt.
  
  Change is coming. Storm is coming. Winter is coming...
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It boggles my mind that Trump supporters have no shame. They seem to think that because there are so many of them that might makes right.
  
  As this article in a British newspaper points out, the question isn't about Trump's lack of ethics, etc. it's how so many Americans voted for him.
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … tionalism?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I strongly disagree with the article. Trump got into office because of a massive propaganda campaign by Russia and billionaire extremists (for different reasons).
  
  The evidence is overwhelming.
  
  The same thing happened in Britain with Brexit.
  
  Putin is delighted with how much he has screwed up both countries with the help of Rupert Murdoch and others.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I don't believe that.
  
  There were actually very few people that were affected by the Russian campaign. It was too small to reach most. That came out a while ago.
  
  But even if Russia waged that kind of campaign, how stupid are the people affected by it that they believed it?
  
  Only ignorant people believe the kind of posts on facebook that the supposed cause.
  
  Those posts came my way. I saw them. I knew they were rubbish just by looking at their content and checking a few things.
  
  That is the danger of having an ignorant, uneducated, religious society.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  If if wasn't effective, Russia wouldn't bother. But they are doing it again with the 2020 election. That undeniable fact doesn't agree with your opinion.
  
  Otherwise, it sounds like you are saying the U.S. is "an ignorant, uneducated, religious society."
  
  That's a sweeping generalization and quite inaccurate. It's also very insulting.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  They tried it in France. It didn't work.
  
  https://www.euractiv.com/section/electi … -election/
  
  https://www.csis.org/analysis/successfu … terference
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Chiming in here...The first link gives credit to strong institutions. I certainly think there's something to this. America absolutely does not have enough over site, or the structure of laws to deal with such attacks on the electoral system. For example, I believe we are one of the only, if not the only, "developed" country with no laws against astroturfing lobbying activities. I've seen first hand how these unsavory techniques can shape public sentiment and elections.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Hell, you're the only country in the world that legalizes state capture. You call it lobbying. In every other first world country in the world, it's considered corruption and is seen as a crime.
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It is sad and not likely what our founder's envisioned with a democratic republic. Most in the US likely don't even have a clue what state capture is. Here, it's not only legal, but, with astroturfing the offenders lie about who they really are. We are nation of criminals, run by criminals, which locks up more people per capita than any other nation...so criminals can make money off of criminals. This certainly isn't changing under Trump, and did't under Obama.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, but a bunch of people fell for the propaganda. People must take some responsibility for discerning reality from illusion. Many of those same people continue to deny their own eyes and ears.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I agree that people must take some responsibility for discerning reality from illusion. The reality also is that many people don't.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly ++++
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah..I've seen a trend from some in the UK where they use Trump to pile on America as though they are better than Americans...it comes off that way at any rate. They are not far behind. In fact, they seem to be following America with Boris Johnson. Maybe it's easier to just think Americans are a bunch of bigots and it could never happen here.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you 100%. From what I have read, immigration was a major factor in causing many Brits to vote for Brexit.
  
  That sounds like "white nationalism" to me.
  
  "Data from Ipsos-Mori showed that immigration/migration was the most cited issue when Britons were asked 'What do you see as the most/other important issue facing Britain today?', with 48% of respondents mentioning it when surveyed."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of … _of_Brexit
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, anyone who follow Boris is an idiot. Sad to say. And we just had Zuma here in South Africa but got rid of him. The similarities between Zuma and Trump were a matter of awe.
  
  Seems the whole world is being run by people who are so important in their own eyes that they don't realize how small they really are.
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "Seems the whole world is being run by people who are so important in their own eyes that they don't realize how small they really are."
  
  I think this is key. Our "leaders" are now, too often, the types of people I was taught to fight against as a kid. Un-self aware bullies who think the wold of themselves. The rough part in fighting them with words is they cannot see past their own noses and generally don't even have a starting point for debate as they don't understand the debate. We used to just handle the situation on the playground after school. That's the language they understand.
  
  And, I have to add I see the truth in PrettyPanther's statement, which I think does go along with your original point. We are all responsible for our own behaviors.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  +1 Although I'm not sure that they cannot see past their own noses, for their planning and actions deny that. They are far too good at enriching themselves and their power not to understand - the refusal to debate is just that; refusal, not ignorance.
  reply report
  60
  TessSchlesingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  ++
  reply report
  79
  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this
  "The evidence is overwhelming." If so you have no worries. I must say so far the Dem's have not proved anything that could even lead to impeachment. However, I for one will be pleased when their inquiry is complete. Hopefully, it will calm the hysteria. I can see you are passionate about your beliefs. I will be happy to accept the truth at the end of the inquiry. Hopefully, this will be a last stand for the Dem's and they will give up on looking for crimes unless the proof is there. Deciding on crime then searching to prove it just does not sit well with me.
  reply report
80
hard sunposted 3 years ago
What do you think Mayor Pete would or will say about it GA? Maybe we will hear what his "level head" thinks . After all, he is a Democrat. We all know Trump is a lump of excrement.
reply report
1. 91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  My crystal ball says Mayor Pete would condemn it as blatant unethical behavior unbecoming of our president. But, it also says that he wouldn't be chasing the shiny lure screaming about emolument illegalities or presidential abuse of power.
  
  Now, let's wait and see if my hope is accurate.
  
  GA
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I too grow weary of the everything Trump does being illegal, and the end of the world type arguments. But, I'll never grow weary of pointing out just how unethical and trashy the guy is. I'll be watching Pete closely on this one, ha. He does have a good rep in Indiana for the most part..as South Bend gained some respect since he's taken office--he did have an issue with minorities that mainly stemmed from his firing of a police chief--you may have read about that. He says he supports $15 hour minimum wage and abolishing the electoral college. You sure you can handle that? He'd certainly represent the Hoosier state better than Mike Pence. I think his protege governor Holcolmb will lose in 2020 mainly due to his anti-marijuana stance.
  
  As a follow up to Kathleen's comment; I thought the point to the OP was to be childish. After all, you rolled the hand grenade...not saying that's horrible, but, as they say...it is what it is, yo.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I hadn't heard about his Electoral College thought. I would really like the opportunity to ask him why he thinks that. But I am not yet worried that it might happen, it would take a Constitutional Amendment, and I don't think we are there yet.
  
  Yes, I did toss the grenade knowing the response it would draw. But, there was also a point to be made in eliciting that expected response. I think the OP was successful. I didn't and don't think it was a childish point. However, and as previously mentioned, the other Mulvany comment--the quid pro quo thing--saved that predictable response from being even more damning because it provided a juicier target for their ire.
  
  Putting aside ardent Trump supporters, would you suppose I am the only one that feels this way about the daily political circus acts we are bombarded with?
  
  GA
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I think you're right about the Electoral College, with it taking an Amendment and all.
  
  As far as not thinking it's a childish point, if that's your view, than what can I say? I thought maybe it could be taken as trolling, to an extent, and thus by implication a bit childish. I can only take your word that this wasn't the intention. Either way, I'm not entirely immune to the lure of childish antics now and then, so I'm not too far up on my high horse here.
  
  No, I don't think you're the only one that feels that way about the circus. The left-wing and the right-wing media can both be outrageous at this point, and I'm not basing this just on the Trump coverage. I cannot watch news on the TV as some of it's frustrating, to say the least, for various reasons. It's more efficient for me to read news online.
  
  I'm not sure circus is the best term for it anymore, but I've yet to coin, or read, anything better.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  uh oh . . . Your comment prompted me to look-up what "trolling" actually meant. Here is what I found:
  
  "Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community. Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users."
  
  This part worries me:
  
  "Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users."
  
  Because I did offer that OP to get a rise out of folks. But my intent wasn't just to get a rise, it was to make a point and to start a discussion about that point.
  
  So maybe it was trolling and maybe it wasn't. My best defense is that I didn't intend it to be trolling. And I didn't mean to infer the circus is only a Democrat thing. I view the Republicans as just as guilty in past efforts as the Democrats are in these efforts. It is just the Democrats that are leading the parade this time.
  
  GA
  reply report
  80
  hard sunposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It's my job to know trolling when I see it. Plus, acknowledging it was a "hand grenade" establishes intent. One could argue that today's circus is simply a continuation of the "Obama is the devil" narrative started by right-wing media and lobbying groups. They then transitioned that to the "Hillary is an evil witch" argument. The left media is going too far now, but I'm more concerned about other factors than their Trump coverage. (i.e. we can accept people's differences without demonizing some of the old fashioned American values that helped make us great) Trump brings it on himself. He invites it on purpose.
  reply report
79
Kathleen Cochranposted 3 years ago
Jeeze GA, grow up! This is America. Not Wheel of Fortune.
reply report
1. 91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You will have to explain that to me Kathleen. How does Wheel of Fortune fit the circumstances?
  
  What part of my OP, or subsequent comments do you find childish?
  
  GA
  reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
Trump just announced on Twitter that G-7 will not be held at Doral.

And his announcement was very statesmanlike and dignified, of course.
reply report
91
GA Andersonposted 3 years ago
I think you have your work cut out for you Valeant. Your task, if you decide to stand behind your claims, is to:

Show where any comment I made supports your claim that I "believe Trump's lies that he wasn't going to get anything of value by promoting his facilities."

Your insinuation that I am a Trump-supporter is just your opinion, and you are welcome to it. But, if you can't meet a simple challenge, (above), to support your claim, then maybe you also can't support that "Trump-supporter" opinion?

BTW, who, exactly, are people like me?

GA
reply report
1. 86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I can meet your simple challenge. In my opinion, only a Trump supporter would celebrate the Democrats having an issue with Trump trying to openly violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Most normal people might say, 'I have an issue with a public official publicly endorsing a property he owns in violation of the law.'
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I can accept your explanation of your opinion Valeant. At least you didn't try to double-down on the claim that I believed a lie that the event would be "free."
  
  However, if you reread the OP, I didn't "celebrate" that the Democrats would have an issue with his plan to use Doral, I specifically noted and addressed the expected degree of the Democrat's response to his choice - "a conniption fit."
  
  As for what "most normal people might say . . ." I did address what I thought the ethics of the choice were in a subsequent, more explanatory response:
  
  "You are also wrong to think that I don't think ethics are important. I do, and I think this location choice was politically unethical, but that was not the point of my OP."
  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/345 … ost4100775
  
  GA
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  However, if you reread the OP, I didn't "celebrate" that the Democrats would have an issue with his plan to use Doral...
  
  "Whooeee! I love it."
  
  You don't view that as celebratory? I would clearly disagree with that.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Not to mention, describing legitimate concerns about potential violation of the constitution as "having a conniption fit." Did Republicans who expressed concerns also have a conniption fit?
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  It sounds like you are saying there are no differences of degree in a response of disagreement and a response of 'Hell no!' disagreement.
  
  What about degrees of difference between shaking your head in disbelief and shaking your fist in disbelief?
  
  Do you not take "conniption fit" as a descriptor of degree?
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, GA, I'm starting to wonder about you.
  
  May I ask you to provide a video of a Democrat having a conniption fit over this issue?
  
  Also, I wonder if you would characterize those 12 Republicans who already had access to the interview storming the room anyway as a "conniption fit."
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Since you asked, I am obliged to oblige:
  
  A Democrat conniption fit.
  
  And yep, in my opinion, those Storming Republicans were definitely in the throes of a group conniption fit.
  
  Also, and in the spirit of being an equal opportunity offender, here is a clip of all the wise folks that knew for a fact that Donald Trump would not become president: (maybe a few of these folks should have used an "if" or "I think")
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Ha ha, great Cosby bit.
  
  As for the other, we all obviously had too much faith in the common sense of the electorate.
  
  Boy, did that minority prove us wrong!
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it was "celebratory," but in the context of the type of issue the Democrats would have, not that they would have one.
  
  Here is the context you left out:
  
  "Whooeee! I love it. The Democrats are going to have a caniption[sic] fit."
  
  GA
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  So it wasn't celebratory. Now you concede it is. But it wasn't the celebratory that I think you meant. What's next? - That there's nothing wrong with celebrating the breaking of our laws, or that others have celebrated the breaking of our laws too.
  
  You basically just perfectly illustrated why I find you to be of Trump supporter ilk.
  
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, you have GA pegged absolutely correctly.
  
  After all, if you're not against him. Then you must support him, there is no grey area, there is no middle ground.
  
  You either recognize he is the worst evil ever to walk the earth, or you are a dupe that supports him.
  
  I love that so many that despise the man refuse to accept that anyone have a neutral or indifferent perspective on the man, it really forces them to make a choice one way or the other.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  There's nothing 'neutral or indifferent' in celebrating people who have an issue when their president violates the Constitution. But solid trolling effort as always, Ken.
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  You got me Valeant. I am the guy with the backward red hat oogling the blonde.
  
  GA
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I thought he looked familiar...
  
  Guess that's part of Trump's growing popularity, all those young woman who think the world of him, and all the guys desperate to be in their good graces.
  reply report
  86
  Valeantposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, that 40% approval rate among Americans sure does make him so popular. And in response to your other post, that's down three points since the impeachment based off his Ukraine shakedown was announced.
  
  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr … l-ratings/
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yup, its all good. Even Fox polls show Trump getting walloped by Biden.
  
  Trump has no chance. And once the debates between Biden and Trump start, it won't be close, Trump will be demolished.
  
  https://daily-politics.com/new-fox-poll … -reliable/
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I really believe it won't get to that point, Ken. Not looking good for your guy...
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, keep the dream alive...
  Weren't you the one that said he wouldn't make it to the end of his first year?
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  No, I was the one predicting his impeachment before his first term ended, And you're the one dreaming, Ken.
  report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well OK then, that prediction will be proven wrong as well.
  report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  yeah, I left out the part that that was you and Wilderness at the far right looking at the same blonde.
  
  GA ;-)
  reply report
  80
  Ken Burgessposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I admit it, she could probably convince me to vote for just about anyone.
  Something about a beautiful woman in a Make America Great Again hat that makes me want to vote for Trump as many times as I can get away with.
  
  The power of persuasion, that pic says it all.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  I'm afraid to ask what "oogling" means, Gus !
  reply report
  91
  GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this
  Well, he wasn't old enough to be learing.
  
  GA
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

2020 G-7 Summit Will Be At Doral

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

2020 G-7 Summit Will Be At Doral

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies