Trump shocks by hawking $60 MAGA Bibles

Yeah, a talent for riding daddy's coattails, making questionable deals, and introducing Daddy to rich Chinese, Ukrainians and others.

 

Jon Stewart is hardly an expert on the issue, and it's highly unlike his is a fair commentator. Quote you evidence and cite source.

 

HIs argument is far more compelling than any I've seen offered so far.

What he does is expose Kevin O'leary's hypocrisy, and deconstructs the argument.

 

The value of art is talent plus fame, however that fame is obtained.

More power to him.

You still need talent, though. Those who rise on pure talent, have more bragging rights, of course.

Why are you concerned about 'questionable' given the corruption in the Kuschner score was far worse., he leveraged his gig in the WH to score a $25,000,000 management fee from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman, on an investment fund for which he had no prior experience, for Trump admin's ostensible kid glove treatment of MBS.

The only thing that is unseemly about Hutner's deals is that he used his famous surname to score the deals. But, in fact, isn't that rather unavoidable, given that it is widely known he is the son of a famous person?

Jared went much further in the unseemly department, he used his office to garner a relationship with the Saudis as a government official, leveraging his WH gig to score a $25,000,000 management fee, and I think it's 'per annum', it reoccurs.

Why would Trump send an inexperienced man to Saudi Arabia, when he had the very seasoned Tillerson and Pompeo?

Why? The reason is obvious: To make his son-in-law rich, because he is married to his daughter, Ivanka.

I mean, trump family makes no effort to hide it.

They are so used corruption they don't even know they are doing it or think it is wrong.

And the right is okay with it, yet they have a problem with a private citizen.

I swear, the hypocrisy is mind boggling.

 

Either talent or a father with rich friends.

 

It's called conformational bias logical fallacy.

 

They are contradictory. You can't make the argument that 'a jury would be sympathetic to Joe's poor memory' if you are claiming Joe has a poor memory, then, elsewhere claim he has a photographic memory.

 

You still need talent.

Does anyone disagree that Tony Bennett is as famous as, or, indeed, is more famous than, Hunter Biden, yet his art doesn't' sell for more than a few thousand.

We get it, you hate the Biden's, and your comments reek of bias.

 

Why don't you do more than make a vacuous claim? Why don't you substantiate your claim?

I rarely see you do that. You just post a few lines, not willing to work harder at your own claims.

You make the claim, the onus is on you to substantiate it, not me. I don't do your work for you.

 

2200 children have yet to be reconnected to their parents, the result of Trump's border policy.

Your comment is unrelated to that point.

 

Having a phototgraphic memory would not prevent someone from developing dementia.

 

This is over 85,000 children who have yet to be reconnected to their parents. That is over forty times as many as those lost while Trump was president. If you are so concerned about those 2000, you should really be concerned about the 85,000.

 

You did not substantiate your claim that it was just republican talking points and you are the one who brought up the subject.

 

Yeah, the '85,000' you claim was unavoidable, but Trump's 2200 separations were deliberate.

However, you don't have it quite right, so lets take a deeper dive, and clarify some points, shall we?

Your assertion regarding the 85,000 unaccompanied children seems to conflate two very different scenarios within the broader context of U.S. immigration policy. The figure you reference largely pertains to unaccompanied minors who arrived at the U.S. border alone, a phenomenon that significantly escalated in 2012 and saw another spike in 2021. These children, often fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries, arrive without parents or guardians. Upon arrival, U.S. law mandates their transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for care until they can be placed with a sponsor, typically a family member already residing in the United States.

This situation differs fundamentally from the family separations that occurred under the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" policy. Under this policy, over 2,000 children were forcibly separated from their parents as a direct result of a deliberate policy choice aimed at deterring illegal immigration. This policy was widely criticized for its lack of compassion and efficiency, leading to a situation where children and parents were separated without a clear or reliable system for reunification.

The issue with unaccompanied minors, while deeply concerning, involves a different set of challenges and policies. These children often embark on the perilous journey to the U.S. border alone, seeking asylum or a better life, and are not separated from their parents by U.S. government policy but arrive already unaccompanied. The challenges they face include proper vetting of sponsors, ensuring their safety in the U.S., and addressing their legal status. However, equating this situation with the deliberate policy-induced separations under the Trump administration oversimplifies the complexities of immigration enforcement and the humanitarian concerns involved.

Moreover, it's important to scrutinize the claim that these children are "lost." While there have been reports of HHS losing contact with a significant number of these minors, this does not necessarily mean these children are missing or in danger. Many may be with their sponsors and continuing their legal proceedings, albeit outside the immediate oversight of HHS. The critique here lies more with the government's follow-up and oversight mechanisms rather than with a policy designed to separate children from their parents.

In essence, while your concern for the well-being of all children affected by U.S. immigration policies is valid, drawing a direct comparison between the unaccompanied minors and the children separated from their parents under the "zero-tolerance" policy overlooks key distinctions between these groups and the nature of their arrival and treatment in the United States. The focus should be on improving policies and practices to ensure the safety and well-being of all children, regardless of how they arrive at the U.S. border.

 

When a candidate, who is clearly a serious 10 commandments violator, hawks bibles in order to find funds to pay his legal bills that this fact is hypocrisy and tawdriness that is cheapening the presidency, what is there to substantiate?

Is it not obvious?

However, you wrote:

The border bill should have strictly been border security, but it had other junk. In addition, it allowed up to 5000 per day before strict action was required.

Though your comment is off topic, it is not obvious, and clearly requires substantiation. Your claim, therefore, is a false equivalency.

 

Hur's report says NOTHING about 'dementia'.

 

You are speculating.

Nice try.

 

But look at the difference in results.
We have to do something on the border. The illegals now know that they can get away with anything with no consequences. They destroy fences and run over the guards. That needs to stop and it will take pain and possibly death of some illegals to stop it. We need to make an announcement on the border that any attempts to cross the border will result in deadly force. We warn them and then we start shooting. It won't take many illegals getting shot before it stops.

In the long run it will save American lives and possibly illegal's lives.

 

Never had to pay for a Bible as they have always been given free of cost. The Trump Bible comes across to me as a cash grab that the Jesus of the Bible I respect would reject.

 

Legal bills that are a direct result of the democrats trying to take him out with phony charges. And, yes, I consider the New York's appraisal charges to be phony.

 

Actually, it's not called that, it's called deconstructing the argument and exposing O'leary's hypocrisy, as previously stated. But, if you don't watch the video, you'll never know.

 

Results obtained from the immoral and deliberate separation of children from their parents as disincentive is not a valid argument. Deliberate immoral results are not valid results.

 

Nope, my comment is correct. You see what you want to see.

 

The net result was many times better.

 

The Biden campaign fundraiser. Why did the WH make such a big deal about an ethics agreememt and blind sales?