HR 2414: The SWAMP Act of 2017

originally posted by: Jonjonj
First of all I am English and in a particularly unbiased position to see what is happening.

I am English too, I can't say unbiased though, but then that's because real things have a habit of being real,
Have a little read, there's no need to believe it, but then you need to disprove it.

Extract,

'That President Trump opted to not divest from his businesses when he took office, and chose, instead, to turn the keys over to his sons, raised ethical flags. That the brand is experiencing this sort of renaissance raised them even higher. But it is the issue of foreign money pouring into Trump’s businesses that might elevate those conflicts into unconstitutional territory. The Emoluments Clause states that a president cannot lawfully accept money from foreign leaders or entities, and many worried that such leaders and entities would use hotel stays or banquet bookings in order to curry favor with the president and his family.
Trump’s lawyers have said this does not violate the Emoluments Clause, because it is a fair value exchange. He said that he would donate any profits from foreign stays at the hotel to the U.S. Treasury, but he has not indicated how and when that will happen'


www.vanityfair.com...

a reply to: Jonjonj

Saying you don't have an argument isn't attacking you. YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. You just don't like it. But you haven't given any reasoning for it or anything. You're not talking about the topic. I'm pointing that out.

If you feel like it's an attack, oh well. Then give an actual counter argument to the topic and I'll stop pointing that out to you.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Jonjonj

Those are some pretty big words there. Your mommy help you look those up???

You're still not saying anything worth reading yet. Just personal attacks as usual. Because like I said, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!!

You don't. You're just here to derail what you can't argue against. It's obvious and a pattern with you.

Ya know what? You just accused me of personal attacks...I think as a gentleman I will offer you the option to back that up before I report it.

Leave him be, sometimes he has these emotional meltdowns, but he's ok most of the time.

It does seem to be a meltdown. Sad to see indeed.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you know that only about 4% of bills actually become law historically? It seems bills being used as toilet paper is pretty common so what's the big deal this time?

It's no big deal, I just find it amusing that liberals spend time writing a bill called SWAMP.. it's like a childish hissy fit and a cry for attention.

Why does it matter what the bill is called? Should we not be interested in discussing the content within?

I think this bill has some merit. We should not allow politicians to find ways to use government resources for personal gain.

For example, look at Cheney, Halliburton and the Middle East.

a reply to: JinMI

Ya, but your interest in it doesn't make any difference. It doesn't effect anything. Neither does mine. I may have something to say about what happens in the UK but it doesn't make any difference because I'm not being effected by what happens there.

Unless there is some link that is. But what do our tax dollars which he isn't paying and which his elected officials aren't wasting and this bill which doesn't effect him make any difference what he thinks of it???

It doesn't.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Jonjonj
First of all I am English and in a particularly unbiased position to see what is happening.

I am English too, I can't say unbiased though, but then that's because real things have a habit of being real,
Have a little read, there's no need to believe it, but then you need to disprove it.

Extract,

'That President Trump opted to not divest from his businesses when he took office, and chose, instead, to turn the keys over to his sons, raised ethical flags. That the brand is experiencing this sort of renaissance raised them even higher. But it is the issue of foreign money pouring into Trump’s businesses that might elevate those conflicts into unconstitutional territory. The Emoluments Clause states that a president cannot lawfully accept money from foreign leaders or entities, and many worried that such leaders and entities would use hotel stays or banquet bookings in order to curry favor with the president and his family.
Trump’s lawyers have said this does not violate the Emoluments Clause, because it is a fair value exchange. He said that he would donate any profits from foreign stays at the hotel to the U.S. Treasury, but he has not indicated how and when that will happen'


www.vanityfair.com...

This is a key point. The liberal media and liberals in general were desperate for Trump's businesses to fail. The smears and the boycotts forcing stores to drop products, etc... were a talking point to gloat at how Trump was apparently being ruined. Now that they realise his businesses are just fine they are angry about it and are trying to blame his family's success on the fact he is President. It doesn't wash unfortunately... they can;t make it stick because Trump was so successful before he ever ran. Liberals hate his success. They hate that he just keeps winning at everything he does.

a reply to: mOjOm

But what do our tax dollars which he isn't paying and which his elected officials aren't wasting and this bill which doesn't effect him make any difference what he thinks of it???

If you could prove that, you could pick a petty argument with it.

Keep in mind we are on a discussion board. Not an activist site, nor are we (assuming) part of or work for the US federal gov't.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Jonjonj
First of all I am English and in a particularly unbiased position to see what is happening.

I am English too, I can't say unbiased though, but then that's because real things have a habit of being real,
Have a little read, there's no need to believe it, but then you need to disprove it.

Extract,

'That President Trump opted to not divest from his businesses when he took office, and chose, instead, to turn the keys over to his sons, raised ethical flags. That the brand is experiencing this sort of renaissance raised them even higher. But it is the issue of foreign money pouring into Trump’s businesses that might elevate those conflicts into unconstitutional territory. The Emoluments Clause states that a president cannot lawfully accept money from foreign leaders or entities, and many worried that such leaders and entities would use hotel stays or banquet bookings in order to curry favor with the president and his family.
Trump’s lawyers have said this does not violate the Emoluments Clause, because it is a fair value exchange. He said that he would donate any profits from foreign stays at the hotel to the U.S. Treasury, but he has not indicated how and when that will happen'


www.vanityfair.com...

Here's the thing though.

To curry favour!

Where is the evidence?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you know that only about 4% of bills actually become law historically? It seems bills being used as toilet paper is pretty common so what's the big deal this time?

It's no big deal, I just find it amusing that liberals spend time writing a bill called SWAMP.. it's like a childish hissy fit and a cry for attention.

Why does it matter what the bill is called? Should we not be interested in discussing the content within?

I think this bill has some merit. We should not allow politicians to find ways to use government resources for personal gain.

For example, look at Cheney, Halliburton and the Middle East.

You can be interested all you like, but I think we both know the real motivations of this bill, and they are not noble ones.
Here is the Congressman who introduced the bill. I will let the picture speak for itself, but suffice to say he is a troll, a pretty good one it has to be said.

a reply to: JinMI

What's to prove??? Is he living here??? NO. Is this about his tax dollars being wasted?? NO. Does our president golfing waste his money??? NO.

Seems like he's got nothing invested. Unless he wants to prove that he does in which case his opinion might carry some weight. But until then.....

The fact that democrats cheer this childishness behavior on just shows how brainwashed they actually are.

Buncha sad little girlies taking selfies

a reply to: AnonyMason

There's so much in this thread and OP!

I actually don't think we can say much when Trump owns hotels and he wants to stay at them. Yup, actually it's SMART. Where I work, the owner of the company owns the building personally where the company is...see where I'm getting.. the company pays him rent lol.

BUT, at the pace he is spending it is not right. I agree that he needs reigned in.

Also, there are many people that posted before me that are showing the blatant partisan crap that I point out all the time. We are in this together people!

Just don't forget when the party you favor gets into office. That's part of how we got here.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: JinMI

What's to prove??? Is he living here??? NO. Is this about his tax dollars being wasted?? NO. Does our president golfing waste his money??? NO.

Seems like he's got nothing invested. Unless he wants to prove that he does in which case his opinion might carry some weight. But until then.....

Nobody needs to prove anything to you.
Don't let me stop you though - it's really funny.

a reply to: UKTruth

You can be interested all you like, but I think we both know the real motivations of this bill, and they are not noble ones.

The motivations mean nothing. The content of the bill are what matters.

Do you agree with the premise that a president, or any other government employee for that matter, should not be able to use their access to government resources for personal gain?

Here is the Congressman who introduced the bill. I will let the picture speak for itself, but suffice to say he is a troll, a pretty good one it has to be said.

Ok. You think he's a troll.

How does that picture affect the validity or premise of the bill in question?

I'm not a teenager. I'm able to get past the shallowness in order to discuss the meat of the issue.

If you're stuck on "looks", I want nothing to do with that.

Good times!

LOL

One of THEE most desperate pieces of political campaign dreck I have ever seen.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well that's why your opinion is worthless to anyone but you too.

That's just how it is. Sorry if you don't like it.

My opinions about UK government are equally just as worthless to you too. But I can accept that. I don't need to troll topics about what's happening in the UK and pretend like what I say matters. Why you do it is anyone's guess....

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

You can be interested all you like, but I think we both know the real motivations of this bill, and they are not noble ones.

The motivations mean nothing. The content of the bill are what matters.

Do you agree with the premise that a president, or any other government employee for that matter, should not be able to use their access to government resources for personal gain?

Here is the Congressman who introduced the bill. I will let the picture speak for itself, but suffice to say he is a troll, a pretty good one it has to be said.

Ok. You think he's a troll.

How does that picture affect the validity or premise of the bill in question?

I'm not a teenager. I'm able to get past the shallowness in order to discuss the meat of the issue.

If you're stuck on "looks", I want nothing to do with that.

It's not his looks, it's his t-shirt. Have a look at his twitter page also. He's just an anti-Trumper and that is driving his world.
His bill is not going anywhere.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: UKTruth

Well that's why your opinion is worthless to anyone but you too.

That's just how it is. Sorry if you don't like it.

My opinions about UK government are equally just as worthless to you too. But I can accept that. I don't need to troll topics about what's happening in the UK and pretend like what I say matters. Why you do it is anyone's guess....

No really, far from not liking it, I am loving it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: JinMI

What's to prove??? Is he living here??? NO. Is this about his tax dollars being wasted?? NO. Does our president golfing waste his money??? NO.

Seems like he's got nothing invested. Unless he wants to prove that he does in which case his opinion might carry some weight. But until then.....

Can you remind me why we are all here then? If not to discuss a wide variety of topics then I'm not sure what any of these words on a screen are good for.

Still, I'm doubting you can prove that that user doesn't pay any US taxes.