PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by GGG

See this doesn't make sense.

You tell people not to be poor, to make good decisions and you want to make a barrier to the choice that will allow them the best chance of not being poor. You also increase the population of future poor by forcing the poor to have children where as those with the means have abortions.

So if you are effectively forcing people to have children don't you then have an obligation to pay for their health care and education costs. Isn't paying for an abortion the most economical way of dealing with the issue.

Not at all--there is no "barrier". Birth control of all types would be given freely to anyone who desires it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Topics discussed today in this thread: #### poor people, Asshat Piers Morgan, Celebrities and their relevance.

Kind of important topic mentioned, but ignored: Trump's son-in-law and the massive conflicts of interest.

What Trump is glad we're ignoring: His secretary of state nominee being involved in Exxon skirting embargoes, including Iran.

ExxonMobil did business with Iran, Syria and Sudan through a European subsidiary while President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of State was a top executive of the oil giant and those countries were under U.S. sanctions as state sponsors of terrorism, Securities and Exchange Commission filings show.

That business connection is likely to surface Wednesday at a confirmation hearing for ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The SEC letter questioned ExxonMobil’s failure to disclose to shareholders that it had transactions with three state sponsors of terrorism. Decisions to make such disclosures should be based on “the potential impact of corporate activities upon a company`s reputation and share value,” and not simply the monetary value of the transactions, the SEC said.

The sales were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005 by Infineum, in which ExxonMobil owned a 50% share, according to SEC documents unearthed by American Bridge, a Democratic research group.

ExxonMobil told USA TODAY the transactions were legal because Infineum, a joint venture with Shell Corporation, was based in Europe and the transactions did not involve any U.S. employees.

The filings, from 2006, show that the company had $53.2 million in sales to Iran, $600,000 in sales to Sudan and $1.1 million in sales to Syria during those three years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...rson/96359776/

I mean you can say the media isn't doing it's job on Trump or whatever. But we're all pretty guilty too of not staying focused on what should be more important matters. I hope that come January 21 we can get all of the Trump nonsense out of systems and focus on what a debacle his administration will be, and not what a distracting asshat he's trying to be with Twitter and other means.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Re: why one and not the other?

Because you can avail yourself of the free birth control. If you choose not to and voluntarily engage in activities that lead to conception, well, then that's your fault. You had the option not to end up in such a situation, but you failed to plan appropriately--that's on you and so you should live with the consequences.

Which means that you either have an abortion on your (and the father's) dime, or you have the kid and keep it or give it up for adoption.

I doubt that my policy view would change based on demographic issues.

The only thing that 100% protects against pregnancy is abstinence.

Some women can't be on birth control.

Sometimes people don't have a say in whether or not they have sex.

There are a lot of issues that fall through the cracks with such a black and white view. You may think they are statistically insignificant but they arent, especially when you count lagging effects like the lifestyles these eventual babies will lead and how they end up contributing to the overall problem.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Well, one way for the US to come up with more money for health care (without raising taxes) is to cut overall military spending and stop funding/subsidizing other nations' defense programs.

Do you think that Canada would be okay with that? Poland? South Korea? Or pick any almost any other country.

After all, it is probably relatively easy for a country to provide a national health care system to its citizens when it can offload a portion of its defense obligations to another nation. So, in that respect, perhaps the poor and uninsured in the US should really look to Canadians, Poles, South Koreans, and the citizens of other such nations as the reason why they don't have affordable health care.

Yeah, it's my fault, as a Canadian, that some poor woman in Mississippi can't afford healthcare for her children.

The reason the US pays so much for defense is because that's what your government decides to spend your money on.

They don't have bases all over the world to be nice. They have bases all over the world -- and pay for bases all over the world -- because they want to project power all over the world.

It's not altruism. It's a decision made by your lawmakers to prioritize military spending over everything else.

Americans just elected a belligerent dickhead and he's bringing in a bunch of hawks. You can't pin your healthcare system's problems on anyone else.

[ResAlien]

Pretty crazy to think that Trump cabinet picks Monica Crowley has been shown to be an outright plagiarizer but it won't make a bit of difference. The Trump team response is to attack the accusation, saying it's an attempt to discredit her.

Literally nothing matters anymore. Facts don't matter, ethics don't matter, I'm not entirely sure what laws even matter. These next few years are really gonna suck.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...olumbia-214612

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Topics discussed today in this thread: #### poor people, Asshat Piers Morgan, Celebrities and their relevance.

Kind of important topic mentioned, but ignored: Trump's son-in-law and the massive conflicts of interest.

What Trump is glad we're ignoring: His secretary of state nominee being involved in Exxon skirting embargoes, including Iran.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...rson/96359776/

I mean you can say the media isn't doing it's job on Trump or whatever. But we're all pretty guilty too of not staying focused on what should be more important matters. I hope that come January 21 we can get all of the Trump nonsense out of systems and focus on what a debacle his administration will be, and not what a distracting asshat he's trying to be with Twitter and other means.

This sounds like they were following all required laws from the looks of it and representing the interests of their shareholders in not publicizing the arrangement.

They should take a real close look at this but it sounds like this was done above board.

Tillerson is about the only qualified guy in that cabinet.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Pretty crazy to think that Trump cabinet picks Monica Crowley has been shown to be an outright plagiarizer but it won't make a bit of difference. The Trump team response is to attack the accusation, saying it's an attempt to discredit her.

Literally nothing matters anymore. Facts don't matter, ethics don't matter, I'm not entirely sure what laws even matter. These next few years are really gonna suck.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...olumbia-214612

Acting as if potential plagiarism (even if true, I know nothing of the case) of some passages automatically discredits all of her experience, knowledge, and potential contributions is laughable. Sure its not good or a good reflection on character, but doesn't cancel out all the good. Nor is Trump hiring based on character

Trump has proven time and time again he's not a typical politician who caves to the whims of the media calling for someone's head over a scandal. He wants results, not a scandal free administration. He has built a cabinet for that, not for political appeasement like every other president (dem & repub) has before him. This is exactly the mandate the people voted for.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Well, one way for the US to come up with more money for health care (without raising taxes) is to cut overall military spending and stop funding/subsidizing other nations' defense programs.

Do you think that Canada would be okay with that? Poland? South Korea? Or pick any almost any other country.

After all, it is probably relatively easy for a country to provide a national health care system to its citizens when it can offload a portion of its defense obligations to another nation. So, in that respect, perhaps the poor and uninsured in the US should really look to Canadians, Poles, South Koreans, and the citizens of other such nations as the reason why they don't have affordable health care.

Do you perhaps think that the United States has a huge military because it continually interferes with international politics for its own economic benefit? The massive military complex in the United States is a key economic driver with the United States selling around 1/3 of worldwide exports.

The country does a lot of good in the world but to view it as being selfless defender of the disenfranchised would be naive at best.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Acting as if potential plagiarism (even if true, I know nothing of the case) of some passages automatically discredits all of her experience, knowledge, and potential contributions is laughable. Sure its not good or a good reflection on character, but doesn't cancel out all the good. Nor is Trump hiring based on character

Trump has proven time and time again he's not a typical politician who caves to the whims of the media calling for someone's head over a scandal. He wants results, not a scandal free administration. He has built a cabinet for that, not for political appeasement like every other president (dem & repub) has before him. This is exactly the mandate the people voted for.

Read the article? It's all right there...

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Re: why one and not the other?

Because you can avail yourself of the free birth control. If you choose not to and voluntarily engage in activities that lead to conception, well, then that's your fault. You had the option not to end up in such a situation, but you failed to plan appropriately--that's on you and so you should live with the consequences.

Which means that you either have an abortion on your (and the father's) dime, or you have the kid and keep it or give it up for adoption.

I doubt that my policy view would change based on demographic issues.

Oh #### off, abstinence is one of the absolute dumbest and least effective messages for birth control ever. Your ideology merely serves to punish the poor who can't afford abortions, proper pre/perinatal nutrition, child care, educational opportunities or options in life. You then have the gall to say that the reason they are not ahead in your idiotic libertarian fantasy is because they didn't have the good sense not to use a coat hanger/underground abortions (which they would do), or make the child a ward of the state (which costs many times that of an abortion, making no economic sense).

Ideologues such as yourself either lack real world experience or have a complete inability to grasp the basic lack of logic associated with their awful plans. The sad thing is that your views are those which are now being listened to by President.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Read the article? It's all right there...

If only the article had gone through and highlighted the exact passages and problems. Oh well, can't trust the mainstream media right? Plagiarism is something only the establishment cares about. Scandal doesn't matter, only results matter. America being great matters.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

If only the article had gone through and highlighted the exact passages and problems. Oh well, can't trust the mainstream media right? Plagiarism is something only the establishment cares about. Scandal doesn't matter, only results matter. America being great matters.

You joke, but the latter part of your statement is totally true for the incoming administration.

Everything Trump does is criticized because it would have been criticized under other administrations (and would have been kaiboshed as soon as a whiff of scandal arose). Your son-in-law? Person accused of plagiarism? Supermajor CEO? Questionable incidents in your past? Laugh at women/disabled people? True or false, no one cares is the approach for this administration. They want people who can get results, scandal be damned.

Trump following through on exactly what he promised the people who elected him he would do.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You joke, but the latter part of your statement is totally true for the incoming administration.

Everything Trump does is criticized because it would have been criticized under other administrations (and would have been kaiboshed as soon as a whiff of scandal arose). Your son-in-law? Person accused of plagiarism? Supermajor CEO? Questionable incidents in your past? Laugh at women/disabled people? True or false, no one cares is the approach for this administration. They want people who can get results, scandal be damned.

Trump following through on exactly what he promised the people who elected him he would do.

Until this rag tag group of heros starts passing policy.

I mean the anti union, anti minimum wage guy from Carl's Junior certainly isn't going to advocate for the workers that elected Trump.

[Senator Clay Davis]

She's in line for a national security role. Someone willing to cheat to get a result should sort of be worrying in that kind of role.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

She's in line for a national security role. Someone willing to cheat to get a result should sort of be worrying in that kind of role.

According to Ducay ethics don't matter so it's fine. Just part of that tell it like it is MAGA mindset.

[Ducay]

Oh good one - degrading to personal jabs ResAlien, already, after presenting no debate or discussion of substance.

Like I said, Trump did not campaign on a platform of bringing neutral, vanilla people into power. He is coming to shake things up and bring in a new perspective. I'm not defending plagiarism or whatever poor records anyone has, but it truly is the MAGA mindset (I love that!). And that is precisely why he won the election.

[ResAlien]

I'm not sure you understand what a personal jab is. You said none of those scandals you listed in post #4492 mattered, several of which are ethics issues. Reiterating what you've already said isn't a personal jab. Trump ostensibly ran on the MAGA platform, so pray tell how is any part of that a personal jab?

[Ducay]

Calling me names is the personal jab

But great try

[ResAlien]

Jesus Christ you whiny child, i didn't even notice that. That's an autocorrect for your username. Let me go change it for you. Let your pearls remain unclutched.

[Ducay]

Yes, pointing out the personal jab after you left a lengthy whinge demanding I explain the personal jab is being a "whiny child".