baddog

Good answer.

The Astros take 3 of 4 from the White Sox and right now, hold a 2 1/2 game lead in their division.

[Hidden Content]

Imagine that, a liberal using logic. Will wonders never cease? You believe there is a conflict of interest here. It doesn’t mean you are right. The law states there is nothing illegal here. No logic required for anything as plain as that. What about the thousands of other investors? Should they feel guilty? Anyone who believes a president would start a war to pad his pocket has gone off the deep end.

Whatever dude. Tell me something Trump has done that you do agree with. That says it all. Trump has done nothing illegal. Of course, when one judges by feelings instead of going by the laws, there will always be a conflict.

Of course I loved the Velasquez hit, but the Paredes double play with bases loaded in the 8th was what made the game winnable.

That should upset some of our fan base. Lol

Being that you’re a liberal, I can see why you take that stance. You are too far gone to expect you to see another side, but here it is…… ‘Google search: Under U.S. law, it is not illegal or a formal legal conflict of interest for a president to own stock in a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin, but ethics watchdogs argue it creates a severe appearance of a conflict. [1, 2] The Legal Reality Exemption from Statutes: The primary federal criminal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. § 208) bars executive branch employees from participating personally in government matters that affect their financial interests. However, the president and vice president are explicitly exempt from this law. [1, 2] No Direct Ban: Presidents are not legally prohibited from holding individual stocks, managing portfolios, or having trades executed through third-party accounts or family trusts while in office. [1, 2] The Ethical Debate The Appearance of Profiteering: Critics and ethics experts point out that a president commands the military, shapes defense budgets, and makes public statements or policy decisions that can directly drive up the stock prices of major military contractors during a conflict. Holding millions in these specific companies while overseeing a war creates an inherent conflict between public duty and potential personal financial gain. [1, 2] The Defense: Administrations typically defend these holdings by asserting that the president's assets are handled by independent managers or trusts, meaning the leader has no direct input, control, or foreknowledge over individual daily stock buys and sales

The SC blocked Trump’s attempt to name TS Edouard after himself, so no, it wan’t his fault. Lol

He wants to rename it the Strait of Trump.

America has always been a military supplier. If you realized that fact, you wouldn’t make statements such as this. Of course, Biden simply gives away $billions in military hardware because he’s an imbecile. Does that make you feel better?

The points have been asked and answered more than once. I see no need to repeat. I agree with November shocking lots of people, just not the way you think.

A president…..manipulating markets with a war. Man, what some people can come up with is simply amazing.

Not your words, but ok. It seems we’ve covered this before. I’m shocked.

Just curious, the pickoff play by Vasquez to Walker, wasn’t that runner interference? He hit Walker’s glove diving for the bag and kept Walker from fielding it.