-
-
-
So, what you're saying is that anyone who owns a company should not be eligible for the presidency.
-
you need blind trust. Not give it to family members who run it for you. That is not blind. This isn't hard.
-
The public voted for him knowing that he owned this company. This isn't a surprise.
-
You changed your argument from "he did enough" to "people don't care" when "he did enough" was shown to be obv. false
-
I didn't change my argument.
-
But you did. You started with "he's done more than necessary" to "people don't care".
-
a) he did more than necessary and b) people voted for him knowing this would be an issue 1/2
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
this one is good so sneaking it inhttps://twitter.com/digiphile/status/819226316004356096 …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
I am pretty sure the press would not have taken this attitude with Clinton Foundation if she left Chelsea in charge.
-
And that's a charity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@jonallendc@realDonaldTrump Are you fucking serious? This does absolutely nothing to solve conflicts of interest - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I've never heard of you,
@jonallendc, but you've completely killed any credibility I may have given you as a show of good faith. -
I have to fully agree with Mike. You have to be in alternate uverse to believe shit u just tweeted
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
this is too stupid an argument. His voters and most Americans assume elected officials avoid C of I.
#Logic -
Yes but voters were able to attribute "of sound mind" to the positions.
-
a vote for Trump doesn't equate to approval of all idiotic/unethical decisions. False logic/argument
#weak
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.