[Lord Dave]

I just see a bung of random clips without context. "If I said that, that's quid pro quo", said what? Quid pro quo requires a pro quo. I don't see that Trump has offered anything in return.

I also don't see that there is a history of presidents rejecting gifts. The gifts given to presidents go to the National Archives, which is where the plane is going. So I am not sure what you guys are whining about, exactly.

That's from the june 28 debate.


"Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done. He’s done horrible things. All of the death caused at the border, telling the Ukrainian people that, we’re going to want a billion dollars or you change the prosecutor. Otherwise, you’re not getting a billion dollars. If I ever said that, that’s quid pro quo. That – we’re not going to do anything. We’re not going to give you a billion dollars unless you change your prosecutor having to do with his son. This man is a criminal."


Also, Obama is well known for having rejected gifts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/barack-obama-michelle-obama-gifts

But Obama, like any other federal employee, is legally barred from accepting any of it outright.

This was in 2015. 

[Tom Bishop]

I just see a bung of random clips without context. "If I said that, that's quid pro quo", said what? Quid pro quo requires a pro quo. I don't see that Trump has offered anything in return.

I also don't see that there is a history of presidents rejecting gifts. The gifts given to presidents go to the National Archives, which is where the plane is going. So I am not sure what you guys are whining about, exactly.

That's from the june 28 debate.


"Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done. He’s done horrible things. All of the death caused at the border, telling the Ukrainian people that, we’re going to want a billion dollars or you change the prosecutor. Otherwise, you’re not getting a billion dollars. If I ever said that, that’s quid pro quo. That – we’re not going to do anything. We’re not going to give you a billion dollars unless you change your prosecutor having to do with his son. This man is a criminal."

Yes, what Joe biden did is close to quid pro quo because it is a political act in exchange for a financial favor. But more accurately it's closer to blackmail and corruption because it was money they were already supposed to get, which he was threatening to withhold unless they fired the prosecutor, which would coincidentally benefit his son.

I don't see how this relates to the plane situation, however.

Also, Obama is well known for having rejected gifts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/barack-obama-michelle-obama-gifts

But Obama, like any other federal employee, is legally barred from accepting any of it outright.

This was in 2015.

It says that he can't accept it "outright", by which they mean "personally." Read the rest of that section for context. In the previous paragraph in the same section and topic it says that the Obama Presidency did accept the gifts:

"In the Obamas’ case, most of the items have been dispensed to the National Archives, while a few, including wine and perishables, are handled by the Secret Service."

The Obama Presidency accepted the gifts, even if they didn't get put on display and were not particularly paraded. This affirms that the norm is for the US President to accept the gifts, and that they ultimately go to the National Archives. It is actually inappropriate and rude to tell a King or Queen that you don't want the gift that they made efforts to prepare for you.

[Action80]

Also, Obama is well known for having rejected gifts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/barack-obama-michelle-obama-gifts

But Obama, like any other federal employee, is legally barred from accepting any of it outright.

This was in 2015. 

Where in the hell does the article state Obama was "well known," for rejecting gifts?

[honk]

That's not the issue in conflict of interest. Conflict of interest issues deal with workplace ethics and responsibilities. It doesn't matter if a bank is giving bigger loans to CEOs. It doesn't matter if celebrities are using their celebrity to get last minute tables at high profile restaurants. The issue arises when that CEO or celebrity utilizes their workplace to give favor to that entity. As long as they are not doing that then they are free to receive benefits and make as much money as they want, and so is Trump.

The difference is that CEOs and celebrities aren't public servants. It absolutely matters if people are spending money on the president's businesses to try and curry favor with Trump. And rather than allow the president to dabble in business and take it on faith that they can resist the temptation to use their awesome power to benefit their own business interests, I think it's much simpler and safer if we legally require the president to divest from all business interests before they take office and prohibit them from taking new ones, and then we don't need to worry about this kind of thing. If you really want to be president, then you should be willing to make the sacrifice of forgoing your business aspirations. Bear in mind that this is only a problem because Trump made it one. It's not like there's a long history of presidents in the modern era running side gigs. We were doing just fine with the expectation that the president should not be making money on the side before Trump came along, and we'll continue to do just fine by taking the next step of codifying it into law.

[Action80]

It's not like there's a long history of presidents.

FTFY.

[Tom Bishop]

The difference is that CEOs and celebrities aren't public servants. It absolutely matters if people are spending money on the president's businesses to try and curry favor with him.

Wrong. When you pay a business for a product or service you get something in return. It is a stretch to say that a business owner owes something more to someone who already bought a good or a service from him.

In contrast to owning and operating a business, politicians regularly solicit and receive millions of dollars through donations. Politician like Obama were asking for large sums of money from donators, even in his last term. Why should we believe that a business owner is more likely to be corrupt than a politician who is handed a wad of cash by a corporation for vague reasons through donation companies?

What you believe should happen is also irrelevant to the fact that Trump's voters knew that he would be running his businesses once elected, especially when he was elected for his second term. Trump made that very clear, and people supported him for it, especially in light of the malicious prosecution against Trump and his companies. The voters wanted this. That is called democracy, and supersedes your small leftist complaint.

We were doing just fine with the expectation that the president should not be making money on the side before Trump came along, and we'll continue to do just fine by taking the next step of codifying it into law.

Laws which are codified through Congress are the result of democracy and representative democracy. Congress votes on the matter, and people vote for congress members. In this case, the people have already voted on this.

The fact that businesses have existed long before the creation of the country and neither the founders of the United States, its many congresses, or its courts up to present have had an issue with this also shows that you are on the losing side of this and do not have a supportable argument. You would be better off with a list of examples of corruption which have harmed the country through this mechanism, rather than handwaving a potential one in contrived scenarios where people owe strangers favors from unsolicited money and without agreement that a favor is owed.

[markjo]

It could be that we’re all wrong about why Qatar wants to “gift” the luxury 747 to Trump.  It seems that they’re just trying to get rid of the damned thing.

While many have speculated that the Qataris have offered Trump the luxurious plane to curry favor with the famously transactional president, there may be a simpler rationale: they just don’t want it anymore.

The royals have failed to sell the plane, which was put on the market in 2020, according to an archived listing. Giving it away could save Qatar’s rulers a big chunk of change on maintenance and storage costs, aviation experts told Forbes. Making Trump happy would be an added bonus.

[Lord Dave]

It could be that we’re all wrong about why Qatar wants to “gift” the luxury 747 to Trump.  It seems that they’re just trying to get rid of the damned thing.

While many have speculated that the Qataris have offered Trump the luxurious plane to curry favor with the famously transactional president, there may be a simpler rationale: they just don’t want it anymore.

The royals have failed to sell the plane, which was put on the market in 2020, according to an archived listing. Giving it away could save Qatar’s rulers a big chunk of change on maintenance and storage costs, aviation experts told Forbes. Making Trump happy would be an added bonus.

So... A white elefant gift?

[markjo]

It could be that we’re all wrong about why Qatar wants to “gift” the luxury 747 to Trump.  It seems that they’re just trying to get rid of the damned thing.

While many have speculated that the Qataris have offered Trump the luxurious plane to curry favor with the famously transactional president, there may be a simpler rationale: they just don’t want it anymore.

The royals have failed to sell the plane, which was put on the market in 2020, according to an archived listing. Giving it away could save Qatar’s rulers a big chunk of change on maintenance and storage costs, aviation experts told Forbes. Making Trump happy would be an added bonus.

So... A white elefant gift?

A gift horse with bad teeth?

[Lord Dave]

It could be that we’re all wrong about why Qatar wants to “gift” the luxury 747 to Trump.  It seems that they’re just trying to get rid of the damned thing.

While many have speculated that the Qataris have offered Trump the luxurious plane to curry favor with the famously transactional president, there may be a simpler rationale: they just don’t want it anymore.

The royals have failed to sell the plane, which was put on the market in 2020, according to an archived listing. Giving it away could save Qatar’s rulers a big chunk of change on maintenance and storage costs, aviation experts told Forbes. Making Trump happy would be an added bonus.

So... A white elefant gift?

A gift horse with bad teeth?

No.  A white elefant is a gift you give someone you dislike but don't want to seem like you do.  A white elefant is delicate and requires alot of money to keep alive.  It's a very expensive pet.  And it's bad form to get rid of gifts so... You get a white elefant, you're gonna be paying for it.

[AATW]

What the utter fuck is he talking about?



Twice he says Biden has "stage 9" cancer, which isn't a thing, while saying how well he'd done on his cognitive tests.
The rest is an utter ramble. He does briefly say it's "sad" but any normal human would have leant more heavily on that than all the other stuff he's rambling on about.

[Tom Bishop]

He does briefly say it's "sad" but any normal human would have leant more heavily on that than all the other stuff he's rambling on about.

Then why haven't you expressed your sympathies or sadness like a normal person would do in the two posts you've made about this now?

[AATW]

He does briefly say it's "sad" but any normal human would have leant more heavily on that than all the other stuff he's rambling on about.

Then why haven't you expressed your sympathies or sadness like a normal person would do in the two posts you've made about this now?

So you agree that Trump’s comments are indefensible and are reduced to changing the subject and a weak attempt at whataboutism.
Good to know.

I’m not the POTUS and haven’t been asked for comment. Trump has. So let me try again. What do you think of Trump’s comments? And do you agree that his repeated use of the phrase “stage 9” demonstrates his own cognitive decline? Which is ironic when being given the opportunity to express sympathy for another human he instead switches to boasting about his own health.

[Action80]

He mentioned "very sad," just as many times in the clip as he did "stage 9," you liar.

There was a correlation between stage 5 and a Gleason score of 9 as to how severe cancer is, so that little "gotcha moment," is a fucking nothingburger from RE as usual.

Why do you post so much bullshit?

[Tom Bishop]

So you agree that Trump’s comments are indefensible and are reduced to changing the subject and a weak attempt at whataboutism.

Actually I see that Trump immediately sent out press releases expressing condolences, public statements that it's very sad, while you haven't done anything except essentially "Biden has prostate cancer <link>", while alleging Trump's lack of public sympathy. You could have expressed at least a little sympathy or condolences in your initial public responses, but did not. I am pointing out your hypocrisy and your arbitrary "rules for thee but not for me" attitude.

And do you agree that his repeated use of the phrase “stage 9” demonstrates his own cognitive decline?

I don't see any cognitive decline. The Gleason system is a grading system specific to prostate cancer which ranks cancers at different levels.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/22087-gleason-score



Joe Biden has a Gleason Score of 9, so Trump is correct in both his choice of terminology and the number Joe Biden is at on the scale. You are critically wrong due to making blind assumptions without research, as usual.

[AATW]

Trump is correct in both his choice of terminology

Nope. He said "stage 9".
Twice.
The word "stage" doesn't even appear on the web page you linked to. Whoopsie!

[Tom Bishop]

Trump is correct in both his choice of terminology

Nope. He said "stage 9".
Twice.
The word "stage" doesn't even appear on the web page you linked to. Whoopsie!

It's a cancer grading system, which means it can be called a stage. Minimal research would have saved you the effort of being wrong again:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cancer+%22gleason+stage%22+-biden

In this google link we can see cancer researchers remarking "Gleason stage 3" and other references.

[Action80]

The only "whoopsie," on this forum is that you are still allowed to post here.

CBS Mornings on Instagram has a commentary concerning Biden, stating,"Look, this is a very serious aggressive cancer. So, he has a gleason stage of nine out of 10 with 10 being in the worst..."

Not to mention again, Trump opened his comments with the words, "very sad...", repeating that again later.

You're just a liar.

Please leave.

[AATW]

It's a cancer grading system, which means it can be called a stage. Minimal research would have saved you the effort of being wrong again:

I think it's pretty clear Trump mixed up the stage of cancer with the Gleason score, but I can agree that even if he did and misspoke somewhat, it's not a "calling Zelensky Putin" level mix-up.

So moving on, what do you make of Trump being asked about Biden and immediately changing the subject to how good his own health was and then going on about Biden's cognitive decline?

[Action80]

^A post from a guy who called Hairy Legs, the pedophile, a "grown up," and participated in trying to justify the utter stupidity that occurred during the term of the worst president in US history, claiming the rest of the world "respected," the US under Hairy Legs, because that is what the "credible media," reported...

In fact, this guy's entire history on this particular sub forum is filled with nothing but "wrong takes" commentary about issues that have been later revealed to be total bullshit, particularly covfefe and Trump.

Just STFU with your bullshit.