Starker on 15/12/2018 at 07:21
"Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much."
But wait, there's more...
Quote:
(
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-trumps-inauguration-paid-trumps-company-with-ivanka-in-the-middle)
When it came out this year that President Donald Trump's inaugural committee raised and spent unprecedented amounts, people wondered where all that money went.
It turns out one beneficiary was Trump himself.
The inauguration paid the Trump Organization for rooms, meals and event space at the company's Washington hotel, according to interviews as well as internal emails and receipts reviewed by WNYC and ProPublica.
During the planning, Ivanka Trump, the president-elect's eldest daughter and a senior executive with the Trump Organization, was involved in negotiating the price the hotel charged the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee for venue rentals. A top inaugural planner emailed Ivanka and others at the company to “express my concern” that the hotel was overcharging for its event spaces, worrying of what would happen “when this is audited.”
If the Trump hotel charged more than the going rate for the venues, it could violate tax law. The inaugural committee's payments to the Trump Organization and Ivanka Trump's role have not been previously reported or disclosed in public filings.
Nicker on 17/12/2018 at 21:29
WTF, indeed.
jkcerda on 18/12/2018 at 17:24
land of the free..................
Nicker on 18/12/2018 at 19:23
(
https://globalnews.ca/news/4768301/donald-trump-saturday-night-live-criticism/) Free no more, if the King In Waiting has his way...
Quote:
“A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live,” Trump tweeted. “It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can't be legal?”
Please, Donny. Sue SNL for libel or just for hurting your feewings.
Tocky on 19/12/2018 at 00:24
Good luck with that because it is more of a reclassification to machine gun. Perfectly reasonable to do so under the definition of a machine gun. The whole gun doesn't even have to be confiscated.
catbarf on 19/12/2018 at 01:08
Quote Posted by Tocky
Perfectly reasonable to do so under the definition of a machine gun.
Machine guns are defined in the 1934 NFA as any mechanism that allows firing more than one round per trigger pull; bump-fire stocks don't circumvent that and the ATF confirmed as such every time they were sent for evaluation.
This redefinition has no basis in written law. I'm not a fan of bump-fire stocks to begin with, but I'm even less a fan of Trump and unelected officials adjusting existing laws by executive fiat. If they want to ban them, they should do it via legislative action.
Tocky on 19/12/2018 at 04:02
I don't get it. First you post "Machine guns are defined in the 1934 NFA as any mechanism that allows firing more than one round per trigger pull; bump-fire stocks don't circumvent that and the ATF confirmed as such every time they were sent for evaluation." Which supports exactly what I said. One trigger pull. The recoil keeps the bullets firing by moving the whole gun instead of an internal action but with the exact same principle. One pull and multiple firing until the finger is released.
And then you say the exact opposite in your next paragraph. It is not a redefinition. It is a reclassification to what they really are. They were misclassified in the first place as not a machine gun. The law already exists.
Also I find it somewhat disingenuous to claim you want the legislature to create a new law when everyone knows they are owned by the NRA and will never displease their masters.