Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said: No, you didn't. And I really don't care about my language. I'm a hell of a lot older than you think I am. And you describe you describe yourself as an a-hole. It's showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said: No, I didn't. Again, show me how. You wouldn't admit it if it hit you in the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said: What are the prerequisites in order to arrive at a constitutional violation in this regard? If accrual of profit - to the relevant conflicted business - is a prerequisite, yet the "event" is conducted at on all-cost basis, would that be fatal to the contention of a constitutional violation? Now that's an interesting question. Also, it's extremely nice to discuss the actual subject of this thread again. I think an all-cost basis surely changes the conversation. However, we would need access as the public to the records of the resort for their purchasing history. Can't see a private entity giving up that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Just now, Tiger Sue said: You wouldn't admit it if it hit you in the head. So in other words, you got nothing. I'll humbly await your apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiger Sue said: And you describe you describe yourself as an a-hole. It's showing. I am at times. I freely admit it. It's called knowing who you are as a person. We'd be a lot better off if people were more honest with themselves about who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said: So in other words, you got nothing. I'll humbly await your apology. I got more than you can imagine. Don't hold your breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said: Now that's an interesting question. Also, it's extremely nice to discuss the actual subject of this thread again. I think an all-cost basis surely changes the conversation. However, we would need access as the public to the records of the resort for their purchasing history. Can't see a private entity giving up that information. Yeah, it's certainly interesting. I anticipate a legal challenge by Monday. However, I am not certain standing would be proper at this point. After the event, assuming plans do not change, a party could file suit and obtain that information via discovery. Nonetheless, I do believe other interested entities that were "on the list" are currently in the best position to challenge the decision to have the summit at Trump Doral. While such a challenge would not be rooted in the Constitution, there's arguably a basis to file a complaint due to the patent conflict of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Just now, NolaAuTiger said: Yeah, it's certainly interesting. I anticipate a legal challenge by Monday. However, I am not certain standing would be proper at this point. After the event, assuming plans do not change, a party could file suit and obtain that information via discovery. Nonetheless, I do believe other interested entities that were "on the list" are currently in the best position to challenge the decision to have the summit at Trump Doral. While such a challenge would not be rooted in the Constitution, there's arguably a basis to file a complaint due to the patent conflict of interest. That was my thought. I'm amazed there wouldn't be an argument by competitors to have a bidding process for the hosting rights. Government could certainly pick a city, but the location within the city would normally be bid on I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said: I am at times. I freely admit it. It's called knowing who you are as a person. We'd be a lot better off if people were more honest with themselves about who they are. I guess that's our problem. I try to be nice and have civil discussion without getting nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Tiger Sue said: I guess that's our problem. I try to be nice and have civil discussion without getting nasty. No, you try to obfuscate when you have no legs to stand on and then, when pressed on something, run and hide behind "civility". I'm begging you for the 2nd time in this thread, don't interact with me. I learn nothing from you and don't find you interesting or having much original intelligent thought. I felt the same way about the former poster that I've compared you to and told him the same in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said: That was my thought. I'm amazed there wouldn't be an argument by competitors to have a bidding process for the hosting rights. Government could certainly pick a city, but the location within the city would normally be bid on I would think. No it wasn't. I mentioned legal challenge and you more or less pooh poohed it. Now you are outmatched by Nola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said: No, you try to obfuscate when you have no legs to stand on and then, when pressed on something, run and hide behind "civility". I'm begging you for the 2nd time in this thread, don't interact with me. I learn nothing from you and don't find you interesting or having much original intelligent thought. I felt the same way about the former poster that I've compared you to and told him the same in the past. I think you engaged me first in this thread. follow your own advice. I will leave you to Nola. He will whip you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiger Sue said: No it wasn't. I mentioned legal challenge and you more or less pooh poohed it. Now you are outmatched by Nola. Please, tell me what part of this was something you mentioned where I agreed with Nola: Nonetheless, I do believe other interested entities that were "on the list" are currently in the best position to challenge the decision to have the summit at Trump Doral. While such a challenge would not be rooted in the Constitution, there's arguably a basis to file a complaint due to the patent conflict of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiger Sue said: I think you engaged me first in this thread. follow your own advice. False. Go back to page 1 and re-read it. Again, dense AF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said: False. Go back to page 1 and re-read it. Again, dense AF. You are right. My mistake and I admit it. But my engagement post still stand and was a civil question.You also said there was no need for a legal challenge.Nola seems to disagree but you are civil with him because you know you are outmatched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tiger Sue said: You are right. My mistake and I admit it. But my engagement post still stand and was a civil question.You also said there was no need for a legal challenge.Nola seems to disagree but you are civil with him because you know you are outmatched. Nope. I respect his intellectual thought and we often have good conversations. Respect is earned. I still believe the laws are already on the books, which is what I said from the beginning. The challenge in this case that NOLA speaks of is a civil one due to loss of profits by another company. Not necessarily one of emolument law. Monster difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said: Nope. I respect his intellectual thought and we often have good conversations. Respect is earned. I still believe the laws are already on the books, which is what I said from the beginning. The challenge in this case that NOLA speaks of is a civil one due to loss of profits by another company. Not necessarily one of emolument law. Monster difference. I will let Nola argue his case. I never pretended to be an attorney and he is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,816 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 9 hours ago, Tiger Sue said: I will let Nola argue his case. I never pretended to be an attorney and he is You did a great job Sister Sue and we commoners can understand what you are saying. I think Brad hopes Trump gets arrested at the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 It didn't take long for this thread to devolve into personal attacks. Mods should move it to smack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,947 Posted October 19, 2019 Author Share Posted October 19, 2019 Back to general topic: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-taxpayers-covered-liquor-bill-for-trump-staffers-and-more-mar-a-lago/amp?__twitter_impression=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Sue 325 Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Right on cue. Did someone say earlier there was no need to test this in court? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-legislation-tblock-funding-g-7-trump-doral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,385 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Hasn't been mentioned, but Doral is completely unsuited for this sort of conference for security reasons. Good sites are typically easy to secure because they are on isolated or situated on islands or backed up to a body of water. Doral sits in a highly populated area - surrounded by high rise buildings - located on the approach path to the Miami airport. It would be a nightmare ($$$$$) to secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 On 10/18/2019 at 9:06 PM, Brad_ATX said: That was my thought. I'm amazed there wouldn't be an argument by competitors to have a bidding process for the hosting rights. Government could certainly pick a city, but the location within the city would normally be bid on I would think. Did you see it was changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Did you see it was changed? I did. Sad that it took so much backlash to make the decision, but it's the right move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted November 24, 2019 Share Posted November 24, 2019 It should have been changed. There is NO reason for a Trump property to host ANY government function. To do so is a pathetic attempt to upset people, sort of like stupid tweets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.