Orange Duce

[a fan]

Trump even gets blamed for things he did before he was president, as a president. Classic lefty logic. #WhackAMole

If Trump had lost the election, this 2014 deal wouldn't be an issue.

Trump won. Now he stands to profit from our Federal employees, so long as the Airforce uses that airport.

You understand that the fact that Trump is POTUS is the problem, rather than the 2014 deal....don't you?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

[dislaxxic]

[youthathletics]

Trump even gets blamed for things he did before he was president, as a president. Classic lefty logic. #WhackAMole

If Trump had lost the election, this 2014 deal wouldn't be an issue.

Trump won. Now he stands to profit from our Federal employees, so long as the Airforce uses that airport.

You understand that the fact that Trump is POTUS is the problem, rather than the 2014 deal....don't you?

Yes...it is crystal clear. I do not see it as a "major" issue. It is nothing more than a technicality becuase it was long before he was POTUS and the legal beagles need to sort it out.

[old salt]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

[a fan]

There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

[old salt]

There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

[old salt]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

Just find a different hotel. Plenty in the same area. One is only 820 ft away from Trump’s.

[old salt]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

Just find a different hotel. Plenty in the same area. One is only 820 ft away from Trump’s.

What if it can't handle Nasty Natasha's 40 USAF guests, on short notice ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

Just find a different hotel. Plenty in the same area. One is only 820 ft away from Trump’s.

What if it can't handle Nasty Natasha's 40 USAF guests, on short notice ?

Take it easy.

[old salt]

I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

Just find a different hotel. Plenty in the same area. One is only 820 ft away from Trump’s.

What if it can't handle Nasty Natasha's 40 USAF guests, on short notice ?

Take it easy.

...& Shannon's fogged in. ...or under protest.

[a fan]

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You're telling me that not one of six Air Force bases we pay for in the UK can handle our planes.

And you don't see this as a tee tiny problem?

[MDlaxfan76]

No surprise here, but the r's will now have to find another defense for their hero:

JUST POSTED: Trump Org Had Deal With Airport That Sent Flight US Air Force Crews to His Resort in Scotland

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/p ... berry.html

In 2014. ..

You are blind, or stupid.

Your hero o d just said "I know nothing.."; and yet in 2014 there was an explict deal done to make this happen.

DEPLORABLE.

Salty is going to remain who he is. So are a whole lot of other folks.
Frustrating, but he's proven to be unshakeable in his apologia for Der Leader.

Fortunately they are not a majority of the country.

On this one, beyond just knowing there's a deal with Prestwick, which Trump himself negotiated, he knows its terms.
So, the question is what are those terms?
Is it a slice of the gas revenue or some other financial benefit?

This is what your TDS conspiracy theories have devolved into. They are not rational. Sad (& funny).

I sure wish we had a President we didn't know is a liar and a cheat.
UNFORTUNATELY, wishing doesn't make it so.

I don't find that "funny" in the slightest, but I do agree as to SAD.

So, the questions are necessary.
Maybe it's all as innocent as warm apple pie.

We just can't assume so with Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

Where's that bootlicker cartoon when we need it?

Perhaps an emoji.

[ggait]

J-H-C Salty!

POTUS is acting as a direct vendor to the U.S. Military. That's forked up. It doesn't matter if Trump started being a vendor in 2014. It doesn't matter if Trump is giving them a good deal on the room rate. It is still forked up.

Of course any normal human being would know this. And would also know to divest themselves of the business so stuff like this doesn't arise. Because it is a conflict and it is unethical. Doesn't matter if the local Holiday Inn was sold out or cost more than the discounted rate at Trump's hotel.

The consequence of Trump being a selfish a-hole with no ethics is that he now sullies the military with his slime. Even if it is the case (very likely) that the military guys were just looking for a place to get some gas and some shut eye. Trump forks up everything he touches.

P.S. Of course Trump also lies through his teeth about this. Like Sgt. Schultz, he knows nothing about this airport and its deal with Trump Turnberry. Bull shirt!! Just like he knows nothing about how the hurricane map got sharpied. Also bull shirt!!

Doesn't it bother you that Trump lies right to your face every forking day and knows you'll just keep eating the shirt he shovels your way?

Oh I know -- Obama's tan suit and Hillary's emails...

[old salt]

J-H-C Salty!

POTUS is acting as a direct vendor to the U.S. Military. That's forked up. It doesn't matter if Trump started being a vendor in 2014. It doesn't matter if Trump is giving them a good deal on the room rate. It is still forked up.

.. ...unless it's a good deal for the tax payers.
Imagine what Trump will do with this in his Tweets & pep rallies.

[ggait]

Wrong, wrong ,wrong, wrong.

POTUS doesn't sell stuff to the government. Period.

Price and terms don't matter. You just don't do it. Because it is inherently suspect and suspicious. So you don't even think about going there.

Everyone but a toady knows this.

[DocBarrister]

There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You have no sense of ethics.

The problem here is twofold:

(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.

(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister