(01-10-2017 12:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 06:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For those who won't follow the link, Schumer tweeted a letter that McConnell sent Reid in 2009 about how the Senate would not hear any nominees until the demands that the Dems are now requiring were met. He literally just crossed out Reid's name and but McConnell in its place. I love this hypocrisy. So spicy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...ominations

And the fact that the Democrats are now requesting/demanding what they did not provide for in 2009 and had the same density (or denser considering the two day set of 5 hearing days then) of confirmation hearings as present is not hypocritical in your book. Interesting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the...ked-again/

To this uneducated eye, it looks like both sides are highly hypocritical vis a vis the letter.

Oh it isn't definitely hypocritical on both side seats. However, I think whoever calls at the first act is Moreno hypocritical when they repeat it themselves down the road. It's as if they forgot the hullabaloo they created when they didn't like the same situation they are now creating. Two sides can be guilty, but the guilt isn't always equal.

I see.

To complain then do is FAR more hypocritical than to do then complain. Makes *perfect* sense. To some, those who act THEN complain of the act are FAR more hypocritical. But they dont wear your blue filtered lenses in this case I guess.....

And to some idiots like me, there is no difference. But leave it to a biased viewpoint to make that case that it is FAR more hypocritical to complain then do as opposed to do then complain, I guess...

It is always interesting to see the red or blue colored glasses when you have to make the argument that case a is FAR more hypocritical than the inverse.

To this uneducated slob, both sides are as equally hypocritical. The only issue that differentiates is that in 2009 the dems didn't have to worry about a filibuster getting in the way ---- ooops!!! Dems fixed that problem for the Trump administration on that as well I guess.....

I guess the Republicans are FAR more hypocritical in your book for keeping that pesky Senate rule change in place after they complained about it, eh?

Sorry but your defense of who is MORE hypocritical just seems really lame from this viewpoint....

But I will give Schumer full snark points for the manner in which he points it out.

"Federal ethics chief blasts 'meaningless' Trump business plan"

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/3...iness-plan

Well, at last i got some sort of answer as to when all these requirements started. According to this guy, four decades ago. That would be about 1976, right. That lets FDR and Washington off the hook. I guess trump should meet the same standards as the other billionaires elected in that time.

(01-12-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, at last i got some sort of answer as to when all these requirements started. According to this guy, four decades ago. That would be about 1976, right. That lets FDR and Washington off the hook. I guess trump should meet the same standards as the other billionaires elected in that time.

You're right, we should. But as you realize, there is no precedent for this situation. So therefore, the actions of this President and the standards to which he is held will create that precedent.

So your preference is to allow Trump to operate more similarly to how he did before the election, correct? What's your thinking behind supporting that, as opposed to holding him to a higher standard? Is it just the difficulty of dealing with the process of disconnecting?

(01-12-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, at last i got some sort of answer as to when all these requirements started. According to this guy, four decades ago. That would be about 1976, right. That lets FDR and Washington off the hook. I guess trump should meet the same standards as the other billionaires elected in that time.

From what I've read, FDR and JFK (and his siblings) had trust funds.
FDR spent a large portion of his on Warm Springs.

(01-12-2017 12:14 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, at last i got some sort of answer as to when all these requirements started. According to this guy, four decades ago. That would be about 1976, right. That lets FDR and Washington off the hook. I guess trump should meet the same standards as the other billionaires elected in that time.

From what I've read, FDR and JFK (and his siblings) had trust funds.
FDR spent a large portion of his on Warm Springs.

I think JFK's predated his entry into politics. Did FDR's?

(01-12-2017 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 12:14 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, at last i got some sort of answer as to when all these requirements started. According to this guy, four decades ago. That would be about 1976, right. That lets FDR and Washington off the hook. I guess trump should meet the same standards as the other billionaires elected in that time.

From what I've read, FDR and JFK (and his siblings) had trust funds.
FDR spent a large portion of his on Warm Springs.

I think JFK's predated his entry into politics. Did FDR's?

I think you're right about JFK; not sure about FDR.

(01-12-2017 09:02 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 12:14 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, at last i got some sort of answer as to when all these requirements started. According to this guy, four decades ago. That would be about 1976, right. That lets FDR and Washington off the hook. I guess trump should meet the same standards as the other billionaires elected in that time.

From what I've read, FDR and JFK (and his siblings) had trust funds.
FDR spent a large portion of his on Warm Springs.

I think JFK's predated his entry into politics. Did FDR's?

I think you're right about JFK; not sure about FDR.

Apparently FDR's was a testamentary trust, so neither had to do anything upon election - their wealth had already been put beyond their control.

http://blog.familymoneyvalues.com/2014/0...-building/

I follow Trump on Twitter to keep track of the crazy things he spews (well, at least in my opinion). The latest that had me scratching my head, hard, was his endorsement of LL Bean out of nowhere. I got his desire to call out companies who were moving overseas, but this came out of nowhere and I figured there must be some sort of rule, written or unwritten, keeping the POTUS from endorsing products due to the obvious conflicts of interests that would bring up.

Turns out the Office of Government Ethics is paying attention.

Quote:The Office of Government Ethics posted a “refresher” on its website Friday that details certain practices that are prohibited for members of the executive branch. Included on the list is “endorsing any product, service, or company.”

The article was posted one day after Trump tweeted “Buy L.L. Bean” to his nearly 20 million followers.
Trump thanked Linda Bean, the heiress to the outdoor apparel company and supporter of a pro-Trump PAC, in the tweet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/314228-...uy-ll-bean

(01-13-2017 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I follow Trump on Twitter to keep track of the crazy things he spews (well, at least in my opinion). The latest that had me scratching my head, hard, was his endorsement of LL Bean out of nowhere. I got his desire to call out companies who were moving overseas, but this came out of nowhere and I figured there must be some sort of rule, written or unwritten, keeping the POTUS from endorsing products due to the obvious conflicts of interests that would bring up.

Turns out the Office of Government Ethics is paying attention.

Quote:The Office of Government Ethics posted a “refresher” on its website Friday that details certain practices that are prohibited for members of the executive branch. Included on the list is “endorsing any product, service, or company.”

The article was posted one day after Trump tweeted “Buy L.L. Bean” to his nearly 20 million followers.
Trump thanked Linda Bean, the heiress to the outdoor apparel company and supporter of a pro-Trump PAC, in the tweet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/314228-...uy-ll-bean

Two points:

1) He's not the POTUS yet. Still a private citizen.

2) How's this any different than the current administration parading Beyoncé and others through the White House? I'm sure that didn't hurt her sales any.

(01-13-2017 09:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I follow Trump on Twitter to keep track of the crazy things he spews (well, at least in my opinion). The latest that had me scratching my head, hard, was his endorsement of LL Bean out of nowhere. I got his desire to call out companies who were moving overseas, but this came out of nowhere and I figured there must be some sort of rule, written or unwritten, keeping the POTUS from endorsing products due to the obvious conflicts of interests that would bring up.

Turns out the Office of Government Ethics is paying attention.

Quote:The Office of Government Ethics posted a “refresher” on its website Friday that details certain practices that are prohibited for members of the executive branch. Included on the list is “endorsing any product, service, or company.”

The article was posted one day after Trump tweeted “Buy L.L. Bean” to his nearly 20 million followers.
Trump thanked Linda Bean, the heiress to the outdoor apparel company and supporter of a pro-Trump PAC, in the tweet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/314228-...uy-ll-bean

Two points:

1) He's not the POTUS yet. Still a private citizen.

2) How's this any different than the current administration parading Beyoncé and others through the White House? I'm sure that didn't hurt her sales any.

To #1 - you're 100% right, which is why the Ethics office posted a reminder and nothing more.

To #2 - why did you choose Beyoncé and none of the various sports teams who have been "paraded around" or George Lucas, or Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt, or Justin Beiber, or George Clooney, or on and on. Hosting celebrities is nothing new at the White House, and doing so is very different then endorsing an entire brand. Would you like me to explain why I think so? Or does the fact that there's is a law strictly forbidding any executive branch employee from endorsing any product, service, or company not suffice?

(01-13-2017 10:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 09:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I follow Trump on Twitter to keep track of the crazy things he spews (well, at least in my opinion). The latest that had me scratching my head, hard, was his endorsement of LL Bean out of nowhere. I got his desire to call out companies who were moving overseas, but this came out of nowhere and I figured there must be some sort of rule, written or unwritten, keeping the POTUS from endorsing products due to the obvious conflicts of interests that would bring up.

Turns out the Office of Government Ethics is paying attention.

Quote:The Office of Government Ethics posted a “refresher” on its website Friday that details certain practices that are prohibited for members of the executive branch. Included on the list is “endorsing any product, service, or company.”

The article was posted one day after Trump tweeted “Buy L.L. Bean” to his nearly 20 million followers.
Trump thanked Linda Bean, the heiress to the outdoor apparel company and supporter of a pro-Trump PAC, in the tweet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/314228-...uy-ll-bean

Two points:

1) He's not the POTUS yet. Still a private citizen.

2) How's this any different than the current administration parading Beyoncé and others through the White House? I'm sure that didn't hurt her sales any.

To #1 - you're 100% right, which is why the Ethics office posted a reminder and nothing more.

To #2 - why did you choose Beyoncé and none of the various sports teams who have been "paraded around" or George Lucas, or Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt, or Justin Beiber, or George Clooney, or on and on. Hosting celebrities is nothing new at the White House, and doing so is very different then endorsing an entire brand. Would you like me to explain why I think so? Or does the fact that there's is a law strictly forbidding any executive branch employee from endorsing any product, service, or company not suffice?

Well I did say "and others". She was the 1st "brand" to come to mind and we're both from Houston? If you're implying anything more than that shame on you.

I suspect many of the "brand names" you listed are worth in the same neighborhood and more than LL Bean. And if you think they aren't benefitting from hanging with the POTUS....

(01-14-2017 12:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 09:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I follow Trump on Twitter to keep track of the crazy things he spews (well, at least in my opinion). The latest that had me scratching my head, hard, was his endorsement of LL Bean out of nowhere. I got his desire to call out companies who were moving overseas, but this came out of nowhere and I figured there must be some sort of rule, written or unwritten, keeping the POTUS from endorsing products due to the obvious conflicts of interests that would bring up.

Turns out the Office of Government Ethics is paying attention.

Quote:The Office of Government Ethics posted a “refresher” on its website Friday that details certain practices that are prohibited for members of the executive branch. Included on the list is “endorsing any product, service, or company.”

The article was posted one day after Trump tweeted “Buy L.L. Bean” to his nearly 20 million followers.
Trump thanked Linda Bean, the heiress to the outdoor apparel company and supporter of a pro-Trump PAC, in the tweet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/314228-...uy-ll-bean

Two points:

1) He's not the POTUS yet. Still a private citizen.

2) How's this any different than the current administration parading Beyoncé and others through the White House? I'm sure that didn't hurt her sales any.

To #1 - you're 100% right, which is why the Ethics office posted a reminder and nothing more.

To #2 - why did you choose Beyoncé and none of the various sports teams who have been "paraded around" or George Lucas, or Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt, or Justin Beiber, or George Clooney, or on and on. Hosting celebrities is nothing new at the White House, and doing so is very different then endorsing an entire brand. Would you like me to explain why I think so? Or does the fact that there's is a law strictly forbidding any executive branch employee from endorsing any product, service, or company not suffice?

Well I did say "and others". She was the 1st "brand" to come to mind and we're both from Houston? If you're implying anything more than that shame on you.

I suspect many of the "brand names" you listed are worth in the same neighborhood and more than LL Bean. And if you think they aren't benefitting from hanging with the POTUS....

Again, people are different than business. See the last POTUS's response to when a company tried to use a photo of him to sell their merchandise by suggesting an endorsement: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/bu...rment.html

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 12:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 09:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I follow Trump on Twitter to keep track of the crazy things he spews (well, at least in my opinion). The latest that had me scratching my head, hard, was his endorsement of LL Bean out of nowhere. I got his desire to call out companies who were moving overseas, but this came out of nowhere and I figured there must be some sort of rule, written or unwritten, keeping the POTUS from endorsing products due to the obvious conflicts of interests that would bring up.

Turns out the Office of Government Ethics is paying attention.


http://thehill.com/homenews/news/314228-...uy-ll-bean

Two points:

1) He's not the POTUS yet. Still a private citizen.

2) How's this any different than the current administration parading Beyoncé and others through the White House? I'm sure that didn't hurt her sales any.

To #1 - you're 100% right, which is why the Ethics office posted a reminder and nothing more.

To #2 - why did you choose Beyoncé and none of the various sports teams who have been "paraded around" or George Lucas, or Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt, or Justin Beiber, or George Clooney, or on and on. Hosting celebrities is nothing new at the White House, and doing so is very different then endorsing an entire brand. Would you like me to explain why I think so? Or does the fact that there's is a law strictly forbidding any executive branch employee from endorsing any product, service, or company not suffice?

Well I did say "and others". She was the 1st "brand" to come to mind and we're both from Houston? If you're implying anything more than that shame on you.

I suspect many of the "brand names" you listed are worth in the same neighborhood and more than LL Bean. And if you think they aren't benefitting from hanging with the POTUS....

Again, people are different than business. See the last POTUS's response to when a company tried to use a photo of him to sell their merchandise by suggesting an endorsement: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/bu...rment.html

In this case, one sells clothing, the other sells music/tickets. I don't see this as so different. Both are successful businesses.

(01-14-2017 11:55 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 01:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 12:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 09:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Two points:

1) He's not the POTUS yet. Still a private citizen.

2) How's this any different than the current administration parading Beyoncé and others through the White House? I'm sure that didn't hurt her sales any.

To #1 - you're 100% right, which is why the Ethics office posted a reminder and nothing more.

To #2 - why did you choose Beyoncé and none of the various sports teams who have been "paraded around" or George Lucas, or Tiger Woods, or Brad Pitt, or Justin Beiber, or George Clooney, or on and on. Hosting celebrities is nothing new at the White House, and doing so is very different then endorsing an entire brand. Would you like me to explain why I think so? Or does the fact that there's is a law strictly forbidding any executive branch employee from endorsing any product, service, or company not suffice?

Well I did say "and others". She was the 1st "brand" to come to mind and we're both from Houston? If you're implying anything more than that shame on you.

I suspect many of the "brand names" you listed are worth in the same neighborhood and more than LL Bean. And if you think they aren't benefitting from hanging with the POTUS....

Again, people are different than business. See the last POTUS's response to when a company tried to use a photo of him to sell their merchandise by suggesting an endorsement: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/bu...rment.html

In this case, one sells clothing, the other sells music/tickets. I don't see this as so different. Both are successful businesses.

No, the difference is that when we see a person interacting with another we do not assume they are explicitly endorsing their products. When Donald Trump met with Kanye I didn't think he was promoting his music, or when he met with Bazos I didn't think he was explicitly endorsing Amazon over other web purchasing services. The explicit nature of endorsing a product (e.g. saying buy LL Bean) is different then the implicit nature of say, wearing that product. That's because the brand now has a sound bite, quote, etc. basically stating that the POTUS tells you to buy our brand, and that is weighty. Based on your argument, that just rubbing elbows with celebrities means you are endorsing them, would suggest the POTUS also can't wear clothes because he would be endorsing that brand over another.

Does that help explain the difference?

You do understand that the context is that some on the left have called for a boycott of L.L. Bean simply because one of the Bean family members who is on the board made political contributions to Trump?

In response to the boycott, I plan to increase significantly my purchases from L.L.Bean. I already buy from them, because they sell good stuff.

(01-14-2017 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You do understand that the context is that some on the left have called for a boycott of L.L. Bean simply because one of the Bean family members who is on the board made political contributions to Trump?

In response to the boycott, I plan to increase significantly my purchases from L.L.Bean. I already buy from them, because they sell good stuff.

I understand the context and think the boycotts are rather stupid. LL Bean makes some great clothes and their lifetime warranty is fantastic.

However, instead of endorsing the brand (which, once he is POTUS is explicitly not allowed) Trump could have used his pulpit to instead chastise people boycotting an American business because of who they supported politically. It would have avoided the murky waters of endorsing a brand and it would have better shown a light as to why he was talking about a campaign contributor.

Now, boycotting brands/artists for their political views is nothing new. The Dixie Chicks faced a similar backlash for the critique of Bush, I remember there being some strange backlash against Oreo when they had a gay pride cookie (or something like that), Starbucks has been slammed for their holiday cups not being Christmasy enough, Chick-fil-a was a target recently for their contributions, and on, and on.

(01-14-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-14-2017 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You do understand that the context is that some on the left have called for a boycott of L.L. Bean simply because one of the Bean family members who is on the board made political contributions to Trump?

In response to the boycott, I plan to increase significantly my purchases from L.L.Bean. I already buy from them, because they sell good stuff.

I understand the context and think the boycotts are rather stupid. LL Bean makes some great clothes and their lifetime warranty is fantastic.

However, instead of endorsing the brand (which, once he is POTUS is explicitly not allowed) Trump could have used his pulpit to instead chastise people boycotting an American business because of who they supported politically. It would have avoided the murky waters of endorsing a brand and it would have better shown a light as to why he was talking about a campaign contributor.

Now, boycotting brands/artists for their political views is nothing new. The Dixie Chicks faced a similar backlash for the critique of Bush, I remember there being some strange backlash against Oreo when they had a gay pride cookie (or something like that), Starbucks has been slammed for their holiday cups not being Christmasy enough, Chick-fil-a was a target recently for their contributions, and on, and on.

Actually Starbucks got slammed for more than that. I stayed out of Starbucks for about a year after having a (more than one) barista start to talk to me about race-related issues; turns out the corporation asked them to do that.

Look, all I wanted was g.d. cup of coffee; last thing I wanted from a barista was a "friendly" talk about Ferguson.

I finally got over my po-ed issues over that I went back into the place just abut two months ago.

For an equivalency I would be just as pissed to get a lecture on LGBT or religious freedom issues from my local Chik Fil A...... somehow that has never happened.

As for the Dixie Chicks -- well they learned two lessons. First -- mixing political lectures and music/entertainment can be toxic. Second -- really stupid of them for not realizing who a great deal of their fan base is when taking a leak on Rule One above.

One would need only think about how kd Lang had to reinvent herself in the "Americana Music" realm after screeching to her then country western base about the cruel issues of eating beef.....

Kind of like I enjoy Steve Earle's music a lot; will never pay money to see him play again ever due to the constant political coaching from stage from him. Friends have told me in the last trip to Austin he pretty much shut the hell up about politics on stage until a quick "Go Bernie" at the end -- glad to see he is learning he is driving away people with greenbacks.

(01-14-2017 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, instead of endorsing the brand (which, once he is POTUS is explicitly not allowed) Trump could have used his pulpit to instead chastise people boycotting an American business because of who they supported politically.

I agree with this (shock!!!) generally, but wonder how the American people would know who he was talking about. Could have been the Dixie Chicks. Or Ben and Jerry's. maybe it is not important they know who he is talking about - just a generic lecture on how to behave from our PEOTUS.

(01-09-2017 09:57 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  "President-elect Donald Trump pledged to step away from his family-owned international real estate development, property management and licensing business before taking office Jan. 20. With less than two weeks until his inauguration, he hasn’t stepped very far.

Trump has canceled a handful of international deals and dissolved a few shell companies created for prospective investments. Still, he continues to own or control some 500 companies that make up the Trump Organization, creating a tangle of potential conflicts of interest without precedent in modern U.S. history.

...

Ethics experts have called for Trump to sell off his assets and place his investments in a blind trust, which means something his family would not control. That’s what previous presidents have done."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trum...companies/

Apparently no new foreign deals doesn't include significant expansion of existing properties.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_587c0c...81d0eb84f7