Originally Posted by Guest

The anti-nepotism law was passed in 1967, four years after JFK was assassinated, and was put in place mainly because of RFK's nomination as attorney general.

RFK was not just nominated; he was confirmed and served. (Both were great, by the way. I would have voted for Robert for President, too.)

Sure didn't affect Michelle's mandates, though, did it? Those were done without anyone's authority except her own. You think Bill would not have been advising Hillary? You think her son-in-law would not have been advising her? Absolutely!

Originally Posted by Guest

In my view two worthy goals are saving our souls and saving our civics. Apparently the true majority of Americans also subscribe to that creed. Additionally 80% of Americans want the US Constitution to remain in tact as it had been written by our founders.

So the choices available to voters were 1) a party that was carrying us away from our traditional/national values to a politically correct global no man's (la la) land where as the song relates "Anything Goes"

or 2) a party where nation and tradition are valued where individual freedom of speech, thought , religion etc has a place and where borders matter.

The candidates have been both defined by either side so let's not waste our time here.

Those who voted for Trump understood he is a businessman and like many dealing in the global market. No matter what he does given his product is mainly in his name points to the fact that someone is going to complain (more below).

Bear in mind that Trump is already quite wealthy. Also consider that most politicians seem to enter politics relatively poor but leave quite wealthy. given their salary expenses and perks it still does not explain there good fortunate. It leaves one to question how many and how often have these same politicians been faced with "conflicts of interest" ergo the allegations of the Clinton, wealth, Pelosi, etc.

No matter what Trump does this "appearance of a conflict of interest is going to rear its ugly head if for no other reason then the lingering resentment of progressives. This is especially true of the news media that hate this guy so badly that they have gone beyond the pale to attempt to damage him, his family and his Admin picks.

Personal Best Regards:

Right on!

Originally Posted by Guest

Who should you watch?

How about using your brain and doing some research instead? Ever hear of Public Record?

Oops, that might take a little effort that is not via remote control.

Originally Posted by Guest

RFK was not just nominated; he was confirmed and served. (Both were great, by the way. I would have voted for Robert for President, too.)

Sure didn't affect Michelle's mandates, though, did it? Those were done without anyone's authority except her own. You think Bill would not have been advising Hillary? You think her son-in-law would not have been advising her? Absolutely!

By Michelle's mandates are you speaking of her telling kids to eat right and exercise? Not to worry, those policies will soon be a thing of the past when Trump is sworn in , and the White House garden gets ripped out.

Originally Posted by Guest

The anti-nepotism law was passed in 1967, four years after JFK was assassinated, and was put in place mainly because of RFK's nomination as attorney general.

Dear Guest:

You forgot to add that Congress passed a separate law in 1978 that "presidents have total discretion in White House hiring". so the issue isn't clear?

You also failed to mention that Obama hired Valerie Jarrett as his senior adviser and while a close friend for years and not a relative White House aides resented her access. Her ideology leanings were in question but that is a topic for another discussion.

Nepotism cuts both ways. It was alleged that JFK was elected because the mob campaigned on his behalf. However, it did not stop RFK from going after mob figures.

Personally I prefer leaders shy away from this practice. However, I can see with so many people around this nation gunning for Trump why he would want to close his circle where he can.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

By Michelle's mandates are you speaking of her telling kids to eat right and exercise? Not to worry, those policies will soon be a thing of the past when Trump is sworn in , and the White House garden gets ripped out.

That's definitely one instance and seeing that school funding was withheld if her "guidelines" were crossed. Of course, her kids were not held to the same standards. As for the White House garden, how much of that was used in their fancy meals? Obviously, that was just another way to let Americans know how far above them they think they are. "Do as I say; not as I do".

Originally Posted by Guest

That's definitely one instance and seeing that school funding was withheld if her "guidelines" were crossed. Of course, her kids were not held to the same standards. As for the White House garden, how much of that was used in their fancy meals? Obviously, that was just another way to let Americans know how far above them they think they are. "Do as I say; not as I do".

What's your point? Are you saying the Obama girls are overweight and don't exercise? The Obama's pay for the groceries that go into "their fancy meals". BTW: How do you have any idea what the Obamas dine on?

Originally Posted by janman

Are you saying the Obama girls are overweight and don't exercise? The Obama's pay for the groceries that go into "their fancy meals".

You are full of BS...

How do the Obammas pay for the groceries that go into thier fancy meals, Jan? The taxpayers is how...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by DirtBag

You are full of BS...

How do the Obammas pay for the groceries that go into thier fancy meals, Jan? The taxpayers is how...

You are so ignorant and stupid...it's painful.

Obama foots the bill for White House Thanksgiving | Money | The Guardian

There’s no free lunch – or breakfast or dinner – for President Barack Obama on Thanksgiving Day. Or any other day, for that matter.

He has to dig into his own pocket to pay for his holiday feast of turkey, ham, two kinds of stuffing, sweet and regular potatoes and six different kinds of pie.

It’s a longstanding practice that a president pays for meals for himself, his family and personal guests.

Obama also pays for other basics – everything from toothpaste to dry cleaning.

And look who's the only that whined and complained.

The practice appeared to catch Nancy Reagan by surprise.

“Nobody had told us that the president and his wife are charged for every meal, as well as for such incidentals as dry cleaning, toothpaste and other toiletries,” she said shortly after she and President Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in January 1981.

A little history

Jimmy Carter sold his family business (peanut farm) and Richard Nixon sold most of his assets to avoid conflicts of interest.





Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

A little history

Jimmy Carter sold his family business (peanut farm) and Richard Nixon sold most of his assets to avoid conflicts of interest.

When Chump makes Nixon look like a paragon of virtue and ethics...that says it all.

Mic drop.

Originally Posted by Guest

What's your point? Are you saying the Obama girls are overweight and don't exercise? The Obama's pay for the groceries that go into "their fancy meals". BTW: How do you have any idea what the Obamas dine on?

Originally Posted by Guest

You are so ignorant and stupid...it's painful.

Obama foots the bill for White House Thanksgiving | Money | The Guardian





And look who's the only that whined and complained.

They pay for the GROCERIES, not the preparation. They paid $1.99 a pound for the turkey...the White house chefs prepared it at taxpayer expense.

They also are paid $400,000 a year...plenty to afford their own groceries.

ALL state functions are at taxpayer expense.

Originally Posted by Don Baldwin

They pay for the GROCERIES, not the preparation. They paid $1.99 a pound for the turkey...the White house chefs prepared it at taxpayer expense.

They also are paid $400,000 a year...plenty to afford their own groceries.

ALL state functions are at taxpayer expense.

400k and they pay for groceries...why would someone spend millions to get that pay and how do they accumulate so much wealth...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

When Chump makes Nixon look like a paragon of virtue and ethics...that says it all.

Mic drop.

I see you are now wearing baggy pants and imitating your idols...


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

When Chump makes Nixon look like a paragon of virtue and ethics...that says it all.

Mic drop.

Richard Nixon also released his tax returns, even though he was under audit.

Originally Posted by Guest

They pay for the GROCERIES, not the preparation. They paid $1.99 a pound for the turkey...the White house chefs prepared it at taxpayer expense.

They also are paid $400,000 a year...plenty to afford their own groceries.

ALL state functions are at taxpayer expense.

Anybody can have the same services. All they have to do is run for president and win.