• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key lawmakers seek probe of Kellyanne Conway's 'go buy Ivanka's stuff' message

tres borrachos said:
I didn't say she was financially benefitting from it, Erod. I said it was an ethics violation, and a very clear one. And as such, people do care. I know I certainly do. I would care if it was Marco Rubio's daughter's company and his senior advisor said the same thing. Sorry, but Trump has to learn the rules, and so do his people. The sooner the better, too.
Click to expand...

I think there should be an investigation as to why Chelsea's husband's hedge fund folded after losing the election. Why were those investors investing, then suddenly not?

And why is the Clinton Foundation downsizing at such a rapid rate? Wasn't this about charity?
 
Erod said:
How is Kellyanne benefitting from this? She's not. She reacted to NEWS that Ivanka's line was dropped by Nordstrom's, and she was being sarcastic. Technically, this is a no-no, but it wasn't done with any real intention in that regard.

Americans do not care about this one iota. It's just important to the ideological media and liberals to hyperventilate over.
Click to expand...

You don't speak for Americans, Erod. Many of us do care about ethics violations in the White House. Actually I'll bet most Americans care.

Your argument is that she didn't benefit. The rules are clear. No informercials from the office of the President of the United States - period.
 
Erod said:
I think there should be an investigation as to why Chelsea's husband's hedge fund folded after losing the election. Why were those investors investing, then suddenly not?
Click to expand...

What does Chelsea Clinton's husband have to do with Trump's senior advisor clearly violating the ethics rules governing her boss's office?
 
tres borrachos said:
What does Chelsea Clinton's husband have to do with Trump's senior advisor clearly violating the ethics rules governing her boss's office?
Click to expand...
When in doubt say Clinton, Obama, and Carter. Immediately invalidates anyone else's concern.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Fiddytree said:
When in doubt say Clinton, Obama, and Carter. Immediately invalidates anyone else's concern.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I hate it when we deviate from the topic at hand by saying "But but but...OBAMA!" or "Well....CLINTON!". It cheapens these discussions.
 
Erod said:
I think there should be an investigation as to why Chelsea's husband's hedge fund folded after losing the election. Why were those investors investing, then suddenly not?

And why is the Clinton Foundation downsizing at such a rapid rate? Wasn't this about charity?
Click to expand...

Well you should start a thread on that, oh wait there already is one. Care to comment on the actual topic of THIS thread instead of deflecting to Clinton?
 
Erod said:
How is Kellyanne benefitting from this? She's not. She reacted to NEWS that Ivanka's line was dropped by Nordstrom's, and she was being sarcastic. Technically, this is a no-no, but it wasn't done with any real intention in that regard.

Americans do not care about this one iota. It's just important to the ideological media and liberals to hyperventilate over.
Click to expand...

This one instance is obviously NOT the biggest problem facing the country or the new administration, but it's bullcrap for a senior advisor to the POTUS to use her official platform to pimp the Trump family's business interests. It needed to be called out, was, and that should be the end of it.

And I'd just say Trumpsters don't care, but a lot of the rest of us don't want to see the office of the POTUS act like some developing country where businesses fear retribution from Dear Leader if they upset him.
 
JasperL said:
This one instance is obviously NOT the biggest problem facing the country or the new administration, but it's bullcrap for a senior advisor to the POTUS to use her official platform to pimp the Trump family's business interests. It needed to be called out, was, and that should be the end of it.

And I'd just say Trumpsters don't care, but a lot of the rest of us don't want to see the office of the POTUS act like some developing country where businesses fear retribution from Dear Leader if they upset him.
Click to expand...
Tough to argue with any of that.
 
Erod said:
Is it not perfectly clear now what that hedge fund and the Clinton Foundation were actually up to?

Charity and investment funds don't dry up over an election. In fact, the market is skyrocketing, so why wouldn't this fund?
Click to expand...

I think you posted your thoughts in the wrong thread. This one is about Kellyanne's ethics violation and not Chelsea's husband's hedge fund.
 
Erod said:
Is it not perfectly clear now what that hedge fund and the Clinton Foundation were actually up to?

Charity and investment funds don't dry up over an election. In fact, the market is skyrocketing, so why wouldn't this fund?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. But perhaps you'll find the answer you are looking for in that other thread.
 
tres borrachos said:
I think you posted your thoughts in the wrong thread. This one is about Kellyanne's ethics violation and not Chelsea's husband's hedge fund.
Click to expand...

Just showing example number 12 billion of liberal hypocrisy.
 
tres borrachos said:
Neat, but completely off topic.

There's a thread to discuss Hillary's son in law.
Click to expand...

That thread must not have much action so that poster needed to come to a trump content thread and start deflecting with CDS .
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am fine with the show no mercy as long as that also goes for Hillary.
Click to expand...

Oh OK, so since we are using the Hillary standard we should only have 7 or 8 congressional committee investigations into this then.
 
Give her a slap on the wrist and move on. I am sick and tired of nothing but bull**** congressional investigations done for nothing but political purposes (of which the congressional Republicans have been guilty of for 20 years now).
 
Napoleon said:
Show no mercy.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS,

Obama used his DOJ to charge Journalist James Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator under the 1922 Espionage act so he could access his emails and phone records

Obama used the DHS to hack into ( 10 seperate times ) the State of Georgia's voting registration database

Obama went around Congress and flew 400 million dollars to Switzerland so it could be laundered and then flown to Iran, who just happens to be the leading State sponsor of terror

Lorreta Lynch was subpoenaed over this, and basically took the 5th

Obama ended the decades old " wet foot dry foot " policy as a going away gift to a ruthless Communist dictator. This was after years of supporting Sanctuary Cities

You people dont have a effing leg to stand on when it comes to ethics and outright illegal acts
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Give her a slap on the wrist and move on. I am sick and tired of nothing but bull**** congressional investigations done for nothing but political purposes (of which the congressional Republicans have been guilty of for 20 years now).
Click to expand...

Agreed. They should publicly admonish her and then move on, and Trump should hope she doesn't make such a mistake again. Between this and her Bowling Green lies, she didn't do her boss any good this week.
 
jonny5 said:
Whats to probe? We all know what happened. Shes already been corrected. Case closed.
Click to expand...

After his Utah town hall with 1,200 booing folks last night, GOP Rep. Chaffetz wishes to disagree with you .
 
tRump over-reacted to nordstrom no longer offering the products of his daughter's business
he recognizes that HE was the reason behind that decision, because of the public's refusal to shop at stores offering ivanka's wares - as a response to his presidential victory
so yes, he is a president and should be expected to act presidential
but he is also a protective father. one who was outraged at his daughter's brand being savaged because of his own presidential activities. he did not stop being a father when he was sworn into office
and there is a precedent for such outrage. Harry asS Truman was quite livid in his day, and similarly protective of his daughter:
... Washington Post critic Paul Hume wrote a review in December 1950 criticizing Margaret Truman's singing performance at Constitution Hall.

"Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality ... (she) cannot sing very well ... is flat a good deal of the time ... more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years ... has not improved in the years we have heard her ... (and) still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish," Hume's review stated.
Click to expand...

The Democratic president chose to respond by penning a letter to Hume on Dec. 6. That letter is on display at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Mo.
"I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-**** as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry. - H.S.T.," Truman wrote.
Click to expand...
...
Click to expand...
Flashback: Harry Truman also slammed one of his daughter's critics | Washington Examiner!

is what tRump did any worse than Truman's defense of his own daughter's reputation?
 
Fenton said:
Oh FFS, Obama
Click to expand...

I stopped reading when I got to Obama, since your post is just more trumpistani deflection to hiding behind Obama.

When will you join the rest of us in 2017 and hold trump/Bannon accountable and actually stick to the thread content in a trump thread .
 
DiAnna said:
Much ado about nothing. Was she stupid, ignorant, and clearly uninformed? Yes. Should a person in her position actually have educated herself on the laws covering what government employees can and cannot legally say/do? Yes.

Is this the biggest concern we as a nation should have regarding this new administration? Oh hell no.
Click to expand...
That is not the point. The point is should someone stupid, ignorant and uneducated as her be advising the President who is not much better?
 
DiAnna said:
I don't disagree, except for the fact that as President, Trump is absolutely exempted from this particular governmental employee rule... and he knows it.

You seem to perceive that I am a Trump fan, since the tone of your reply is sarcastic and confrontational. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I despise Trump, and am in shock that there were enough imbeciles in this country to put a 200-lb toddler into the White House. THAT is what the American people should be concerned with, along with unconstitutional EO's and belittlement of the Judicial system doing the job the founders meant it to do.

Trump is a loose cannon. He WILL create chaos, because that is what he has chosen to do. He WILL create global instability, because that is what he has chosen to do. He WILL align himself with Russia, one of America's most dangerous enemies, because that is what he has chosen to do. So focusing on a relatively low-level lackey who followed her boss's orders to hawk Ivanka's personal business is the least of the worries the senate ethic committees should pursue. However, I do not criticize that decision, since even the republican chair of the Ethics Committee realizes that if the senate turns a blind eye to this kind of blatant conflict-of-interest violations, they will be relegated to the ash-heap of history.

Still, Ivanka's clothing/jewelry/shoe line is NOT the major problem facing the senate or the American people; Trump's own conflict of interest, ethical violations ARE. And for those, he is conveniently immune.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you are a Trump fan, I've read your posts. However, while Trump is exempt from ethics (surprising since you would figure the president of the US above all would need to be held to ethical standards), his staff is not. Conway and Spicer are speaking what Trump wants them to speak about. Time to hold them accountable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom