The Donald, conflict of interest? The Donald may very well surpass Bill Gates as the wealthiest American. What a deal.

---

The Donald, conflict of interest? The Donald may very well surpass Bill Gates as the wealthiest American. What a deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/21/report-trump-may-have-asked-business-favor-argentine-call/94224742/

President-elect Donald Trump's spokesman denied Monday an Argentine news report that Trump sought a business favor when that nation's president called to congratulate him on his Nov. 8 election victory.

"Not true," Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller told USA TODAY in an email.

Trump’s Buenos Aires office building project has been delayed by a series of issues, including financing and permitting requirements. When Argentine President Mauricio Macri called Trump to congratulate him on his election victory, Trump asked Macri to address the permitting issues, according to Jorge Lanata, one of the country’s most prominent journalists.

---

That looks like a special kind of stupid to me.

Since you are the one saying "Clinton Good" it sure looks that way from here.

Of course LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE isn't going to appoint a special prosecutor.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-no-special-prosecutor-to-go-after-hillary-clinton-says-trump-campaign-spokeswoman-20161122-htmlstory.html

---

Can't we just move on?

Guy the answer is no, not as long as the president elect is using his position for personal gain.

---

Can't we just move on?

Guy the answer is no, not as long as the president elect is using his position for personal gain.

Even before he is in office
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-apparently-admits-to-violating-ban-on-self-dealing-new-filing-to-irs-shows/2016/11/22/893f6508-b0a9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html

President-elect Donald Trump’s charitable foundation has admitted to the IRS that it violated a legal prohibition against “self-dealing,” which bars nonprofit leaders from using their charity’s money to help themselves, their businesses or their families.

The admission was contained in the Donald J. Trump Foundation’s IRS tax filings for 2015, which were recently posted online at the nonprofit-tracking site GuideStar. A GuideStar spokesman said the forms were uploaded by the Trump Foundation’s law firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

---

That looks like a special kind of stupid to me.

Since you are the one saying "Clinton Good" it sure looks that way from here.

Of course LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE isn't going to appoint a special prosecutor.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-no-special-prosecutor-to-go-after-hillary-clinton-says-trump-campaign-spokeswoman-20161122-htmlstory.html

And In shift, Trump says humans may be causing global warming, so how much help now for dirty energy and the associated jobs?

And no wonder he didn't publish tax returns, Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS shows [edit] Gary got this one 1st. [/edit]

How long before he realises that cancelling TPP will actually help China and be bad for the US, China's gain? The collapse of the TPP could be bad for everyone

And how long before he realises that the majority, probably by over 2 million, that voted against him, are the ones who generate 64% of the countries economic output. And if he does, will that mean he will dump the others 49% of population who under perform by only contributing 36% of GDP. Donald Trump lost most of the American economy in this election

---

Can't we just move on?

Guy the answer is no, not as long as the president elect is using his position for personal gain.

Quite correct.

To Trump supporters -

Please don't emulate Clinton (both) supporters. By denying the truth about your candidate.

You are better then them.

Trump supporters. After Disturbing Video of 'Hail, Trump!' Surfaces, Trump Sends an Unmistakable Message to "Alt-Right", but does he, Donald Trump’s still not really denouncing racism by the alt-right, despite what he told The New York Times

---

Looks like Trump not only deny the global warming but that he is also denying those who dont.

Donald Trump has not given up his long battle to stop Vattenfall construction of wind turbines outside his golf course in Scotland.
The New York Times reports that he asked the british UKIP leader Mr Farage for help.
The argument is about 18 holes, 11 wind turbines and a "ruined" view.
Donald Trump has been embroiled in a long dispute with the Swedish Vattenfall company regarding a wind turbine at one of his golf courses in Scotland.
The case of the eleven wind turbines that are planned to be set up in the sea off Aberdeen where Trump golf resort is situated went last summer up in the UK Supreme Court.
The decision went against Donald Trump and Vattenfall announced that they will now invest about three billion in wind farm that will be completed in two years.

"Idiotic, narrow and provincial" Trump said about the UK Supreme Court decision.

Where's Trump's personal gain?

Guy you're smarter than that. You demean yourself trying to sound stupid.

---

Why is it ok for democrats to *blatantly* break the law and personally profit from positions of power, but it's not ok for republicans to even have a mere appearance of impropriety?

For now, and I reserve the right to reassess this "statement"... but for now:

I'm thinking when you "have enough advance degrees to wallpaper a small bathroom" while "sipping daintily on [y]our shade grown, pumpkin spiced, soy milk infused Fair Trade coffees" it's a lot harder to look in the mirror and realize you are being played for a fool.

I think really smart people should feel obliged to always punch up, never down.

It's too easy to bash on the average Trump supporter. But it takes a lot of effort to go up against clever Democrat, try to explain they are being equally as gullible as the Trump supporters they so frown upon and then next to impossible to explain you are not sourcing Fox News... far from it unfortunately.

Angela, betreger, whenever you guys feel like doing some homework then here's just one of the reasons I love "punching up" at Hillary.

We all know her "public" stance on Social Security... anyone ever think to ask what her "private" stance is?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/10/30/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/04/the-coming-plague-of-poverty-among-the-elderly-clintons-plan-for-gutting-social-security/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States

Google Translate doesn't do BS->English for now, so relying on my own abilities I'm getting:

Hillary would have sold Social Security down the river and convinced Democrat voters it was not only OK but a perfectly good idea.

Sliver lining: I doubt this'll fly now that Democrat voters remembered to raise their guard with a Trump administration.

---

Angela, betreger, whenever you guys feel like doing some homework then here's just one of the reasons I love "punching up" at Hillary.

I think you assign anyone who hates Trump into the must love Hillary category. Fatal mistake. Hillary is political roadkill, now Trump must be made political roadkill, before he damages the USA beyond repair out of shear ignorance and utter incompetence.

---

Here, let me rephrase it for you so you can ignore it again.

Why is it ok for democrats to *blatantly* break the law and personally profit from positions of power, but it's not ok for republicans to even have a mere appearance of impropriety?

Hillary is over and done and there is no need to fixate on her. The current issue is Trump and how he uses his office for personal gain.

---

Hillary would have sold Social Security down the river and convinced Democrat voters it was not only OK but a perfectly good idea.

Sliver lining: I doubt this'll fly now that Democrat voters remembered to raise their guard with a Trump administration.

Well, regardless of the politics involved, SOMETHING must be done to fix it. 'Selling S.S. down the river' is maintaining the status quo.

Evidence:

Social Security:

The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2034, the same year projected in last year's report.

Medicare:

The Trustees project that the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will be depleted in 2028, two years earlier than projected in last year's report.

Social Security's annual cost is projected to increase from 5.0 percent of GDP in 2016 to about 6.0 percent of GDP by 2035, then decline to 5.9 percent by 2050, and then rise to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2090. Under the intermediate assumptions, Medicare cost rises from 3.6 percent of GDP in 2016 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035 due mainly to the growth in the number of beneficiaries, and then increases further to 6.0 percent by 2090. The growth in health care cost per beneficiary becomes the larger factor later in the valuation period, particularly in Part D.

Source:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

AND notice that this is NOT sourced from Fox News (or indeed ANY media outlet), but by the following people:

Jacob J. Lew,
Secretary of the Treasury,
and Managing Trustee
of the Trust Funds.


Sylvia M. Burwell,
Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
and Trustee.

Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary of Labor,
and Trustee.

Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
and Trustee.

(The other 2 trustee positions being currently vacant.)

All 4 being Obama appointees from 2013 and 2014.

So, then...

Social Security + Medicare currently are at 8.6% of GDP, rising to 12.1% in 2090.

The Social Security trust funds will be depleted by 2034, and the Medicare Trust fund by 2028.

So, you all see the problem? Status quo = bankrupt SS/Medicare (part A) programs, meaning they will have to be funded out of General Revenue, as Medicare part B and part D currently are.

There are several possibilities on actions to do:

1. Status Quo. Do nothing. We will have to fund the programs out of a combination of the dedicated taxes to support them, then replace the portion funded out of the trust funds with general revenue taxes. The portion of GDP over the long haul to fund the total of both programs will increase from 8.6% now to 12.1% by 2090, regardless of any possible changes. This will mean that either other programs will have to be cut, or taxes raised, or both. This is the least viable of all the options, but the option that most people likely perfer.

2. Cut benefit levels to match what the dedicated taxes bring in. This will be opposed by the Democrats, the lobbying organizations (such as the AARP), and likely the general public, and possibly the Republicans.

3. Restrict who can get benefits, perhaps based on asset and income levels or more likely raising the age of eligibility, until the programs can be supported by the current dedicated taxes. This will be opposed by many in the general public (who were promised these benefits in return for their Decades of paying these taxes), the various lobbying organizations (AARP & others), and likely many in the Republicans and perhaps the Democrats.

4. A combination of 2 and 3.

5. Privatization of the programs. Likely will be opposed by dang near everyone except the die-hard Libertarians.

So, all of the possibilities are either going to be destructive, or heavily opposed.

Something HAS to be done. The status quo is NOT going to be sustainable. Which way will we go? I have no clue. I know my favorite option (5), but that is least likely to happen.

This the problem with most government social programs. They are not sustainable in the medium to long term.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Here, let me rephrase it for you so you can ignore it again.

Why is it ok for democrats to *blatantly* break the law and personally profit from positions of power, but it's not ok for republicans to even have a mere appearance of impropriety?

Hillary is over and done and there is no need to fixate on her. The current issue is Trump and how he uses his office for personal gain.

HAHAHA!

Guy you don't see a problem. Article. I. section 62 of the Constitution seems to have a problem

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State

---

Here, let me rephrase it for you so you can ignore it again.

Why is it ok for democrats to *blatantly* break the law and personally profit from positions of power, but it's not ok for republicans to even have a mere appearance of impropriety?

Hillary is over and done and there is no need to fixate on her. The current issue is Trump and how he uses his office for personal gain.

HAHAHA!

Guy you don't see a problem. Article. I. section 62 of the Constitution seems to have a problem

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State

betreger,

That is Article I, Section 9...

And Trump is not US President.... yet... (not until next year, about 2 months from now).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.