|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » IS IT LEGAL FOR THE U.S. TO ADVERTISE TRUMP'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES? |
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 04-25-17 12:16pm - 2798 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
IS IT LEGAL FOR THE U.S. TO ADVERTISE TRUMP'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES? THE U.S. POST OFFICE SHOULD START SELLING STAMPS WITH DONALD TRUMP'S FACE, CHARGING AN EXTRA 50 CENTS THAT IS DONATED TO TRUMP FOR EVERY STAMP SOLD. WHAT A GREAT IDEA FOR MAKING THE U.S.A. GREAT AGAIN! =================================================== http://www.thewrap.com/state-department-...s-mar-a-lago-resort/ The Wrap State Department Cuts Blog Post That Touts Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort Federal executive department apologizes for “any misperception” Umberto Gonzalez | April 25, 2017 @ 11:27 AM Following criticism over ethical concerns, a State Department website has removed a blog post that trumpets President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. The blog post, initially posted on ShareAmerica, a State Department platform used for sharing what it describes as “compelling stories,” detailed the history of Trump’s “Winter White House” ahead of Trump’s April 6 meeting there with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The State Department issued a statement Monday apologizing for “any misperception.” “The intention of the article was to inform the public about where the President has been hosting world leaders,” the web page now reads. “We regret any misperception and have removed the post.” Ethics groups have warned about the potential conflict of interest presented by the private Florida resort. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) pointed to the blog piece Monday, asking in a Twitter message why the State Department would spend “taxpayer $$ promoting the president’s private country club.” The post described the history of the Palm Beach estate, which heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post donated to the U.S. government in her will in 1973 — 12 years before Trump purchased it. It was not clear whether the blog post had been vetted for legal or ethical concerns. The blog post was still up on the U.S. Embassy’s London website, but officials say the post is expected to be removed. | |
|
||
| 04-25-17 01:00pm - 2798 days | #2 | |
|
jook (0)
Active User  Posts: 325 Registered: Dec 22, '13 Location: jersey city |
And DJT's reply to that query would unquestionably be, "What, me worry?" [tm, Alfred E. Neuman] Actually, it's a little confusing, at least to me. The president enjoys absolute immunity for anything he does in a personal capacity while in office. However, people can still bring suits against him for his policies, like the suit brought against Trump Hotel in Washington by the Cork Wine Bar alleging unfair competition. And there's a sh!tload more suits. However, I don't get the differentiation between personal stuff vs. policies. Btw, Trump has been involved in excess of 4000 lawsuits, many of them still pending. And I'm sure he's got a rationalization for each one. Or maybe they're fake lawsuits. Don't get me started though. | |
|
||
| 04-25-17 02:24pm - 2798 days | #3 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. The emoluments clause of the Constitution of the United States. (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.) "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 04-25-17 03:27pm - 2798 days | #4 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^The professor who correctly predicted the Presidential elections for the last 30 years is doing the talk show rounds claiming that this is what will bring down the Trump Presidency but sadly for everyone it will be way too late to fix all the cluster fucks he will have created before getting impeached. Mind you he may very well go down in History has being the President who brought sweeping changes to the Constitution because you know that no future President will be able to withhold releasing his taxes, put his multi-million/billion businesses in a blind trust, be able to put most of his family members in key roles, be an admitted sexual predator(Clinton was first) or be so ignorant of what is involved in being a President that most of your statements regarding simple things make you look like a complete idiot. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 04-26-17 11:02pm - 2797 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
THIS IS NOT BREAKING NEWS. BUT I MISSED IT WHEN IT CAME OUT, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTICING: ===================== ===================== US Congress Just Gave Internet Providers The Green Light To Sell Customers' Browsing History Without Consent Libby Watson Mar 29, 2017, 1:30pm The US House of Representatives voted today to repeal rules preventing internet service providers from selling their customers' web browsing and app usage data without explicit consent. The Senate passed the same bill last week, which means the only obstacle that remains is a signature from President Trump — and the White House has already signalled he will do so. The rules would have required ISPs to get explicit opt-in consent from customers before selling their sensitive data, including web browsing history and app usage data. The rules hadn't gone into effect yet, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai stopped the first provision, which would have required ISPs to keep customer data secure — what a concept! — from going into effect earlier this month. Without these rules, "there will be no strong federal protection for consumers when it comes to how their ISP can use their information," Dallas Harris, a policy fellow at the privacy advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Gizmodo. Under the current statute, customers must be allowed to opt out of letting their ISP sell their data, but without a rule to interpret that statute, it's much harder to enforce. And the 2-1 Republican majority at the FCC is hardly desperate to enforce that rule. Eric Null, the policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute, told Gizmodo it's "highly unlikely" that we'd see any enforcement by the FCC if a provider doesn't provide reasonable measures to opt out. The rules were repealed using the Congressional Review Act, which was used only once before the Trump administration, but has been implemented seven times since January. Essentially, this means the FCC can't issue any "substantially similar" rules in the future. Gigi Sohn, former counsellor for ex-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, told Gizmodo that it isn't clear whether this means the FCC would be prevented from passing stronger rules in the future, and that ISPs may not have "given a whole lot of thought" to that possibility. But it seems that ISPs are betting that this would act as a "nuclear option", eliminating the possibility of future regulation by the FCC. So, what does this mean for US consumers? Harris told Gizmodo that they will "have to take their privacy into their own hands". Practically speaking, Harris said, this means Americans should "get online right now, get on [their] ISP's website" and opt out of having their data sold. It might also mean getting a VPN — a private network that routes all traffic through its servers — though they'll have to pick one they trust not to sell their data, too. Harris also fears that the repeal will have a "chilling effect" on broadband adoption among those who still aren't online. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pointed out, there are also serious implications for security: If ISPs look to sell consumer data, "internet providers will need to record and store even more sensitive data on their customers, which will become a target for hackers". Even if they anonymise your sensitive data before they sell it to advertisers, they need to collect it first — and these companies don't exactly have a perfect track record in protecting consumer data. In 2015, for example, Comcast paid $US33 million ($43 million) as part of a settlement for accidentally releasing information about users who had paid the company to keep their phone numbers unlisted, including domestic violence victims. This is all made much more difficult for consumers by the dearth of broadband competition in the US. More than half of Americans have either one or even no options for providers, so if you don't like your ISP's data collection policies, chances are you won't be able to do much about it, and providers know that. It's highly unlikely that providers, particularly the dominant companies, will choose to forego those sweet advertising dollars in order to secure their customers' privacy, when they know those customers don't have much choice. After the Senate passed its version of the repeal last week, the bill was blasted by multiple open internet advocacy groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology. There was also a last-minute push by advocacy groups to turn the public against the bill prior to the vote. The EFF and ACLU called on the public to call their representatives, which got a boost of sorts from actress Alyssa Milano: Meanwhile, lobbying groups that represent internet providers and tech companies lauded the bill. Last week, the Consumer Technology Association, which represents companies including Facebook, Apple and Twitter, said the privacy regulation "threatens to undermine innovation and competition in the internet ecosystem". (Gigi Sohn told us that's a "stock line they use any time they get regulation they don't like".) The criticism that the rule is inconsistent with the FTC's privacy framework is utter garbage. Not only is it largely meaningless to almost everyone — who the hell knows what the FTC's privacy framework is? — it's also a rhetorical trick to obscure what ISPs actually want, which is weaker regulation. The FTC's privacy framework was only really different in one crucial way that ISPs hated: It doesn't consider web browsing and app usage "sensitive", which requires opt-in consent, but the FCC does, and advertisers really want to get their hands on that valuable web browsing data. Repealing the FCC rules "doesn't create a level playing field, it just creates a hole in protections," says Harris. All is not completely lost. US ISPs still has to allow people to opt out of having their data sold, so customers can call them or go online to find out how to do that. But today's news is devastating for privacy overall. Consumers could have had more control over their privacy; your data could have been safer. Things could have been better, if Congress had done what it usually does and done nothing. Instead, they made things worse for anyone who doesn't run an internet company or an advertising agency. There's no policy justification and no public interest in doing this; consumers are deeply fearful, in fact, about their privacy online. It was an action solely designed to benefit some already very rich companies that barely anyone wanted. | |
|
||
| 04-27-17 08:16am - 2796 days | #6 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
Even with all that against him Trump still won the election. Everyone knew this going into the election booth so it shows the voters didn't care. As for what is needed to run for president, the Constitution only has two requirements: Be at least 35 years of age and a natural born US citizen. No education requirements or need to show tax returns. It will take a constitutional amendment to change anything as all requirements enacted by Congress will be struck down as unconstitutional. Do you think two thirds of both houses of Congress and 38 US states will pass any new amendment in the near or foreseeable future? "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 04-27-17 11:17am - 2796 days | #7 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
TRUMP HAS PROMISED TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. ONCE THE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN WHAT TRUMP HAS ACCOMPLISHED, THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE TRUMP PRESIDENT FOR LIFE. WITH HIS ELDEST DESCENDENT HIS NATURAL HEIR. I WANT EVERYONE TO WAKE UP IN THE MORNING, SINGING "AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL". WHAT A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE FREE. END OF RANT.  | |
|
||
| 04-27-17 11:21am - 2796 days | #8 | |
|
jook (0)
Active User Posts: 325 Registered: Dec 22, '13 Location: jersey city |
Oh please. Ivanka is the natural successor. After all, DJT believes in women, no? | |
|
||
| 04-28-17 08:59am - 2795 days | #9 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
WHY DO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PASS LAWS FOR THE NATION, BUT EXEMPT THEMSELVES FROM THOSE LAWS? IN OTHER WORDS, DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO, NOT WHAT I DO. THAT USED TO BE CALLED A DOUBLE STANDARD, BACK IN THE DAY. =============================== =============================== The Wrap Colbert Calls House GOP Members ‘D—–bags’ Over ‘Zombie Trumpcare’ Exemption (Video) “It is just exhausting … watching this man try to accomplish something,” the “Late Show” host jokes on Trump’s first 100 days Tony Maglio | April 28, 2017 @ 7:51 AM Like most of you, Stephen Colbert cannot wait for President Trump’s first 100 days to officially be over — if for no other reason than so we can all finally stop talking about it. Fortunately, Monday will mark that milestone. “It is just exhausting … watching this man try to accomplish something,” the “Late Show” host quipped on Thursday. Over the course of his still-young term, Trump’s healthcare bill has been particularly tough to follow in all of its iterations. The Affordable Care Act’s replacement is now being referred to as “Zombie Trumpcare,” as the proposed law is pretty much a shell of its original form. “Unlike Obamacare, under the new plan, individual states would be allowed to not cover pre-existing conditions,” Colbert explained the proposal’s continued resistance. “In preparation for this passing — just in case — yesterday, the House GOP exempted themselves from Zombie Trumpcare,” he added, receiving a predictable shower of boos from the studio audience. “Do not be too hard on these guys, you have to understand: They all would have lost their coverage, because being a douchebag is a pre-existing condition for [them].” | |
|
||
| 04-28-17 06:58pm - 2795 days | #10 | ||
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I don't know about you but personally I'm not exactly sure how Trump managed to get elected. He and Hillary were the two most detested candidates in the history of the United Sates and I think that Hillary was probably doomed from the beginning because she was slightly more detested and distrusted. I wonder what the results would have been if the person under FBI investigation at the time of the election had been named.
Let's see. You have a republican President, a Republican Senate and a Republican Congress and the only thing they managed to do in the first 100 days of the new Presidency is to nominate Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the Republicans had to destroy 200 years of Democracy to get it done so that tells me that very little will get done. Long live the Brown Coats. | ||
|
|||
| 04-29-17 10:02am - 2794 days | #11 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
Trump has now backed off on getting rid of NAFTA, a big issue with most of his Rust Belt voters. I some how don't see him seeking re-election if he doesn't have their votes. "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 04-29-17 10:50am - 2794 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^Maybe but there seems to be a general consensus among many observers that the Trump Wall is by far the biggest issue facing Trump at the moment. I don't know if you heard the story but Rush Limbaugh attacked Trump on his syndicated radio show and the very next day Trump came out and said that he still planned on building the wall. Of course that will never happen because the Congress will never dish out billions of dollars for the wall. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 04-29-17 05:38pm - 2794 days | #13 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
The dropped the Wall funding to get the budget approved. We also know there are many fiscal conservatives who will ask the Donald to have Mexico pay for the Wall. That means it ain't gonna happen. And now he's released his tax policy which is only one page. That is something which will never be enacted as well since Paul Ryan wants revenue neutral tax cuts. Then again, whenever a Republican is in office they don't seem to care about the deficit. Whatever.   "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016)Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 04-29-17 11:16pm - 2794 days | #14 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
There's your answer. I talk to a LOT of people in the course of my job and, in the weeks leading up the election, I ran into quite a few who were agonizing over their decision to go for Trump. The consensus seemed to be that this past election was the latest - and worst - lesser-of-two-evils election the U.S. has ever had. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 04-30-17 10:20am - 2793 days | #15 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^At what point will a majority of Trump voters reach buyers remorse? I mean of all the candidates Trump is the only one who didn't know that being President is hard, that passing laws is very difficult, that Foreign Policies are very important because pissing off your enemies is bad but pissing off your allies is so much worse, that trade means you have to give up something to get something back, that what you say is just as important as what you do because when these things aren't in accord than people stop listening to you. If I was an American and last week my President said that he already misses his old life and he's only been president for a little more than 3 months in a four year term than I would be wondering what the hell that means for the next 3 years and 9 months. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-15 of 15 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
