President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#24,453
#24,453
jwells said:
Or perhaps they'd like a career fraudster who's wrecking the economy to not be president. This is as clownish as arguing that Obama shouldn't have been able to nominate a Justice "this close to the election".
Click to expand...
That was one of the ultimate tribal facking moves. Petty grievances
 
#24,454
#24,454
BeardedVol said:
Lol, he took rolled his debt-laden business into an IPO, took the money, and then declared bankruptcy 10 years later.

"The art of the deal."
Click to expand...


“10 years later” lmfao

So people were made aware of the debt of the company. They decided to invest. And a decade later the company filed bankruptcy.

What in your mind was the issue here?
 
#24,455
#24,455
jwells said:
Or perhaps they'd like a career fraudster who's wrecking the economy to not be president. This is as clownish as arguing that Obama shouldn't have been able to nominate a Justice "this close to the election".
Click to expand...

lol what? You believe Trump is intentionally wrecking the economy because he doesn’t want to be president?

And no, Obama shouldn’t have been able to nominate a justice.
 
#24,459
#24,459
Vol8188 said:
lol what? You believe Trump is intentionally wrecking the economy because he doesn’t want to be president?

And no, Obama shouldn’t have been able to nominate a justice.
Click to expand...
Even though Trump was able to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed even closer to the election than the nomination of Merrick Garland was? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Ribs and BeardedVol
#24,461
#24,461
BowlBrother85 said:
Even though Trump was able to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed even closer to the election than the nomination of Merrick Garland was? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Click to expand...

Yes. 100%. I can inform you of the actual difference in the scenarios if you’d like, but I doubt you care. You just want to pretend your party was wronged
 
#24,462
#24,462
Vol8188 said:
Yes. 100%. I can inform you of the actual difference in the scenarios if you’d like, but I doubt you care. You just want to pretend your party was wronged
Click to expand...
No, you can't because the scenarios were identical.

1) In 2016, a conservative justice died (in February), while a Democrat was President.

2) In 2020, a liberal justice died (in September), while a Republican was President.

3) In 2016, the Republican reasoning for not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland was because it was too close to the election.

4) However, in 2020, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was much closer to the election than Antonin Scalia's death had been.

It was blatant hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and BeardedVol
#24,463
#24,463
BowlBrother85 said:
No, you can't because the scenarios were identical.

1) In 2016, a conservative justice died (in February), while a Democrat was President.

2) In 2020, a liberal justice died (in September), while a Republican was President.

3) In 2016, the Republican reasoning for not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland was because it was too close to the election.

4) However, in 2020, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was much closer to the election than Antonin Scalia's death had been.

It was blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t. Would you actually like the explanation? Because the more I read your previous takes in the Covington Catholic thread and some of the Russia gate, I’m starting to wonder if you just enjoy being wrong
 
#24,464
#24,464
Vol8188 said:
It wasn’t. Would you actually like the explanation? Because the more I read your previous takes in the Covington Catholic thread and some of the Russia gate, I’m starting to wonder if you just enjoy being wrong
Click to expand...
Even Republican Sen. Susan Collins from Maine, said that Republicans were hypocritical over that. It's why she voted against the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. If you had an explanation that made any sense, you would have already posted it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and BeardedVol
#24,465
#24,465
#24,466
#24,466
BowlBrother85 said:
Even Republican Sen. Susan Collins said that Republicans were hypocritical over that. It's why she voted against the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. If you had an explanation that made any sense, you would have already posted it.
Click to expand...

That’s okay. Susan Collins has been wrong before in her life.

The explanation is simple. Who controlled Congress at the time and what were the rules at the time? If you address both of those, you find the answer immediately

Congress was controlled by republicans in 2016. So they decided to wait.

Congress was controlled by republicans in 2020. So they decided to fill the position.

This is consistent with the previous norms and political precedents.

There was also a change to the filibuster rules in 2017 that made it easier to get ACB approved
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#24,467
#24,467
BeardedVol said:
Lol, he literally took the funds from the stock sale, and continued to bankrupt multiple casinos.

Multiple.

Casinos.
The art of the deal.
"
View attachment 743145
View attachment 743146
Click to expand...

“10 years after going public”….and then you’re claiming “he” continued to “bankrupt casinos”

In your mind he took the company public and yet somehow had full control and just decided to bankrupt the company because you somehow think that profited him?

You’ve lost me
 
#24,468
#24,468

How Trump’s Family-Linked Crypto Deals are threatening a ‘Hunter Biden-style’ scandal at the White House​


Donald Trump risks undercutting his presidency with a Hunter Biden-style influence-peddling scandal unless he clamps down on questionable crypto deals that his family has inked with investors in the Middle East and China, experts told The Post.

Trump is catching flak from both sides of the aisle as foreign money pours into two family-linked crypto projects – the $TRUMP meme coin and World Liberty Financial. In both examples, critics allege that foreign entities are trying to buy influence with the White House.

The latest apparent conflict of interest surfaced last Tuesday, when an unknown Chinese e-commerce firm damn Culture Group with zero revenue, eight employees and a business reliant on TikTok said it would buy up to $300 million of $TRUMP – even as Trump weighs plans to allow TikTok to stay online in the US despite Congress’s ban.

nypost.com

How Trump’s family-linked crypto deals are threatening a ‘Hunter Biden-style’ scandal at the White House

Donald Trump risks undercutting his presidency with a Hunter Biden-style influence-peddling scandal unless he clamps down on questionable crypto deals that his family has inked with investors in th…
nypost.com nypost.com
 
#24,469
#24,469
Vol8188 said:
That’s okay. Susan Collins has been wrong before in her life.

The explanation is simple. Who controlled Congress at the time and what were the rules at the time? If you address both of those, you find the answer immediately

Congress was controlled by republicans in 2016. So they decided to wait.

Congress was controlled by republicans in 2020. So they decided to fill the position.

This is consistent with the previous norms and political precedents.

There was also a change to the filibuster rules in 2017 that made it easier to get ACB approved
Click to expand...
Says a little bit about Obama for not petitioning the court to try a force it through. He didn't infringe upon the Constitution and take a grievance to the courts, which is antithetical to the current administration
 
#24,470
#24,470
Vol8188 said:
The explanation is simple. Who controlled Congress at the time and what were the rules at the time? If you address both of those, you find the answer immediately
Click to expand...
That doesn't change the hypocritical nature of the Republican's explanation for why Merrick Garland didn't receive a vote in 2016.

Vol8188 said:
This is consistent with the previous norms and political precedents.
Click to expand...
Name one time, where a party gave an explanation for not allowing a vote on a Supreme Court nomination ... and then defied their own explanation 4 years later. I'll wait. This should be good.
Vol8188 said:
There was also a change to the filibuster rules in 2017 that made it easier to get ACB approved
Click to expand...
Once again, you are not explaining why the Republican's changing positions wasn't hypocritical. You are only explaining how it was easier for them to get away with being hypocritical.

You are making a fool of yourself here. It's hysterical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#24,471
#24,471
Vol8188 said:
“10 years after going public”….and then you’re claiming “he” continued to “bankrupt casinos”

In your mind he took the company public and yet somehow had full control and just decided to bankrupt the company because you somehow think that profited him?

You’ve lost me
Click to expand...
Amazing what one can do with a pliant board of directors.

Like getting a $500k raise after driving the business to bankruptcy.
1000005304.png

Bankruptcy expert studies Trump casinos

A study by a Temple University Beasley School of Law professor shows Donald Trump’s casinos in Atlantic City lost far more jobs than their competitors.
news.temple.edu news.temple.edu
 
#24,472
#24,472
BernardKingGOAT said:
Says a little bit about Obama for not petitioning the court to try a force it through. He didn't infringe upon the Constitution and take a grievance to the courts, which is antithetical to the current administration
Click to expand...

There’s no grievance to take. Like I said, this has been the norm
 
#24,473
#24,473
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#24,474
#24,474
BowlBrother85 said:
That doesn't change the hypocritical nature of the Republican's explanation for why Merrick Garland didn't receive a vote in 2016.


Name one time, where a party gave an explanation for not allowing a vote on a Supreme Court nomination ... and then defied their own explanation 4 years later. I'll wait. This should be good.

Once again, you are not explaining why the Republican's changing positions wasn't hypocritical. You are only explaining how it was easier for them to get away with being hypocritical.

You are making a fool of yourself here. It's hysterical.
Click to expand...

It’s not hypocritical. It’s the norm. Opposing parties dont vote for the other parties nominee in the last year of their presidency. They wait.

It’s the historical norm. How’s it hypocritical?
 
#24,475
#24,475
BeardedVol said:
Amazing what one can do with a pliant board of directors.

Like getting a $500k raise after driving the business to bankruptcy.
View attachment 743149

Bankruptcy expert studies Trump casinos

A study by a Temple University Beasley School of Law professor shows Donald Trump’s casinos in Atlantic City lost far more jobs than their competitors.
news.temple.edu news.temple.edu
Click to expand...

What’s the problem exactly? You’ve lost me. A company went public? Then failed?

Somewhere in there you think something evil occurred. Be specific because you’ve lost me
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top