• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

CxtzDVXXgAAPKr9.jpg


https://twitter.com/x/status/800298286204723200

The important stuff that matters.
 
milo said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/800755684434477056
Click to expand...

When Michael Bloomberg was elected Mayor of New York, he had to step down from, and away from, his own company, due to potential conflicts of interest. (Wall Street firms being Bloomberg customers and some (Merrill Lynch?) investors in the company).
Surely Trump will have to do the same? You can't have the Presidenr of the country running his own business in the background. Huge potential for conflict of interest.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
When Michael Bloomberg was elected Mayor of New York, he had to step down from, and away from, his own company, due to potential conflicts of interest. (Wall Street firms being Bloomberg customers and some (Merrill Lynch?) investors in the company).
Surely Trump will have to do the same? You can't have the Presidenr of the country running his own business in the background. Huge potential for conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

He has passed or will pass control to his sons and son-in-law so not being 'directly' in control and hoping that is enough to avoid a conflict of interests. Still not convinced he can pull that trick for 4 years though.
 
if i was rigging an election i'd make sure the numbers were at least possible

suggests incompetence rather than conspiracy but surely there is a law meaning they have to investigate
 
galeforce said:
if i was rigging an election i'd make sure the numbers were at least possible

suggests incompetence rather than conspiracy but surely there is a law meaning they have to investigate
Click to expand...
That's unlikely.

The SC decision on Bush Vs Gore was essentially that the Dec 12th provision is sacrosanct, and that the votes must be completely counted and assessed by that time. Trump would be able to hold it up in court on technicalities of counting methods, ask his counties to go slow, etc. past that date and block any recounts.

Clinton could take it to the SC and get them to reverse their judgement, but she'd need 4 judges to agree to take the case and she currently only has 3 (assuming Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still alive).
 
that seems a little short sighted, it's amazing how much stock they put in protecting themselves from their own armed forces yet there are no checks and balances for deciding who controls them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back