Ops-Normal.org

Raised the possibility of merging three topics relating to US politics a few days ago, receiving no objections. Just looked at the logistics of doing so, and it has the potential of becoming very messy - sorting posts by date/time doesn't play very well. So have decided a better solution might be to lock all three to future contributions, and start up a new US politics topic, this one. So the two hamster wheels and the POTUS one are now locked.

Admin/Alison

I was wondering how you could possibly merge all three topics and have them make any sense whatsoever....

Good plan...

Agree, good idea Boss.

When canals are drained it's generally the oak trees that suffer although pond weed can be had at reasonable prices at the local market.

Very profound, Grasshopper er..Siseman.

Just heard on the 'all leather wireless,' the Aussie PM Malcolm Talkbull, er sorry, Turnbull, now stating that he is confident that Donald Trump will serve in America's best interests as President.

A bit of a change from his earlier pronouncements.
Was along the lines of 'don't panic' from memory...

Just make sure the lefties don't simply ignore the conversation... Because they lost....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzl8xjkgXCo

And some more common sense...

https://youtu.be/Ex9ldUHSgjs

I don't think any liberals are going to ignore the fact that we now have Donald Trump in the White House, AA.

We shall both be in the clear in future, when the full extent of Trump's ignorance, incompetence, and downright corruption comes to light, even to those who voted for him, because neither one of us voted for him. (I know that I did not, and I sure hope that you, as a Briton, did not.)

Donald Trump himself has never sucked up to any foreign despots, never taken any foreign money? Have you ever heard of Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин? Donald Trump has been very fulsome in his praise of that man, despite all those people who turned up dead, imprisoned, dispossessed, or merely exiled after opposing him. There might well be a connection between Russian money financing Trump's way of doing business and the way that Trump licks Putin's boots, even though it's very mean of a liberal to think such a thing.

How about that other tyrant, the old guy with a beard who used to run Cuba? Trump was caught doing business with Castro even though that meant violating the embargo. (In just one more of those "You could not make this up!" Donald Trump events, Trump had his people there in Cuba doing business in violation of the embargo at the same time that Trump was telling gullible exile Cubans how he was for keeping the embargo in place. Yeah, well, "Keep it in place, but don't actually observe it," I guess he meant. Or he was misquoted. Whatever.)

Never mind all that. I guess those facts came out in other conversations, ones that you either ignored or were simply unable to understand in the first place. (A believer in Trump trying to follow world events must be about like the family dog watching television.)

AA, if you like conversations, wait a little while, when we might be able to have one about a money trail from Russia to this flashy hotel just a few blocks from the White House, the Trump International Hotel. That should bring out the best in you!

I thought that peeps liked "confusing"

I am no great fan of the US but I have to say I feel we in the UK have more common cause with them than any European country.
.

Siseman:

Donald Trump himself has never sucked up to any foreign despots, never taken any foreign money?

Be real, please... He was a businessman... He's there to make money and he did just that. He was not in a position of political power nor was he selling influence over politicians or government. Which is more than can be said for the loser in this affair...

AA, that was Donald Trump, politician, sucking up to Putin, unless you somehow think that running for President of the USA has nothing to do with politics. What, your Donald is just a businessman until he takes the oath of office, so that he can say and do whatever he likes until then, free of any hint of playing politics? Sorry, AA; it doesn't work that way.

It will be Donald Trump, politician, who will still owe a lot of money to Russian banks, money he has used to shore up his shaky business empire after his regular lenders tired of his record of failure. Or do you Trump fans think, somehow, that those Russian millions will magically cease to exert any pull on what passes for Donald Trump's mind when he hands over his businesses to his family and then calls that a "blind trust"?

In case you have already forgotten, there's no legal requirement for setting up a "blind trust," just as there is none for showing us his tax returns, so that Donald Trump is not going to do either of these things. What he promises to do and what he does are often two very different things.

It really is a shame that you Trump partisans aren't able to cite numbers off his tax returns that can show Trump to be as wealthy, as successful, and as charitable as you want to see him to be, taking him at his word. Until then I guess you will just have to endure informed guesses that he's faking it in all three categories. five if you want to count showing his tax returns and setting up a "blind trust."

Hillary doesn't matter any more, we've seen the last of her as a national politician, and anyway, we knew what her numbers looked like.

Chuks:

Keep clutching at straws mate... Who was more likely to be compromised by those who had given money, Hillary or Donald? We know for sure that the Saudis and Qataris are looking fir a refund right now...

And let's not forget who transferred control of 20% if the US's Plutonium to the Russians... Hep, it was Hillary - after her palm was crossed with silver...

I don't care what's in Trump's tax return... But I do know that a presidential salary won't be on his next one...

Can't figure out this fixation with PAST tax returns.

We know for sure that the Saudis and Qataris are looking fir a refund right now...

Indeed, AA.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that Prince AlSmokinWeed, or whoever, delivered 25 million simoleans to the Clinton "foundation" out of sheer generosity.

OB:

He's ever such a nice man you know... Magnanimous to a fault... $25M wasn't it... So, let's do the mathematics... It is widely reported that the Clinton Foundation very generously passes on 6% of donations to the charities it supports and the remainder go for "administrative costs"... So, the charities get a big fat check for $1.5M... That's a nice little windfall to say the least. I'm sure the very high cost of transferring such a generous amount will barely be covered by the remaining $23.5M...

I'm in the wrong business...

It succeeded!!! Confusion in spades. Enough for AA to confuse me with Chuks.

Siseman:

That may or may not be a good thing...

AA, you tell the most shameless lies, big fat ones! Check again on the percentage of money that the Clinton Foundation passes along, but from reliable sources, not your BS "it is widely reported" ones. Try 88% instead.

Anyway, do try to get over the fact that Hillary lost the election. I have, so you should be able to as well. Focus now on your boy who won the prize, because I will be doing so, and of course trying to keep track of his shenanigans. Oh, but it will be a busy four years, leading off with Trump's promise to deport 3 million criminal illegals, when there are only 1.9 million in that particular category. How very, very awkward! How many illegals did he say there were, 30 million? Trump will not be allowed to make up the numbers by throwing in a million or so naturalized citizens, no idea why ....

A million here, a million there, at least it is a start. As it is, Obama has been booting 200K of them a year for quite a while.

Chuks:

My "lies" are based on the Clinton Foundation's tax return for 2014 which is the most recent available and shows a drop in charitable giving from 2013 of 40% even though revenue was up by 20%. You really are a fool or a troll.

The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.

During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment.

The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014. The group also spent more on rent and office supplies (a total of $6.6 million) than it did on charitable grants. The Clinton Foundation’s IRS forms show that even its depreciation expense ($5.3 million) — an accounting classification that takes into account the wear and tear of an organization’s assets — exceeded the tax-exempt organization’s charitable grant outlays.

Link

Over $34M on salaries... Jobs for the boys, (and girls)?