Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 25, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump is meeting on Monday with Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), who was one of the staunchest supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) presidential campaign.

According to pool reports, Gabbard will meet with Trump Monday at Trump Tower in New York City, though there is no indication what the two will discuss.

One reporter for The New York Times tweeted that Gabbard was under discussion for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump would be a fool to not pick her.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

she would be a fool to take it.

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-25 04:29 PM | Reply

I agree, but she still is one of the best choices.

#2 | Posted by coyote at 2016-11-25 04:46 PM | Reply

I agree, but she still is one of the best choices.

#2

Why, Coyote, does she hate the UN with all her heart?

#3 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-11-25 05:12 PM | Reply

she would be a fool to take it.

Yes, she would. Gabbard has a bright future in the Democratic Party. She should stay as far away as she can from the Trumpster fire.

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 07:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, she would. Gabbard has a bright future in the Democratic Party. She should stay as far away as she can from the Trumpster fire.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 07:38 PM | Reply

It would show an elitist bent if she refused to take it. If a president elect taps you for an appointment you have a sense of duty to take it regardless who is President elect.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 07:46 PM | Reply

If a president elect taps you for an appointment you have a sense of duty to take it regardless who is President elect.

Do you recognize the absurdity of saying there's a "sense of duty" to serve a president who didn't pay any income taxes for 20 years and bragged about it?

No American should feel any obligation to a man who leeched off America his entire sorry-ass 70-year-life, just because he got the second-most votes in a presidential election.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you recognize the absurdity of saying there's a "sense of duty" to serve a president who didn't pay any income taxes for 20 years and bragged about it?

No American should feel any obligation to a man who leeched off America his entire sorry-ass 70-year-life, just because he got the second-most votes in a presidential election.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 08:15 PM | Reply

You can love him or hate him but the country elected him so yes there is a massive sense of duty to accept a president elects tapping you to be part of his team. You know how I feel about Hillary. I would be duty bound to serve in her administration if she tapped me. No matter what I personally felt about her.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 08:26 PM | Reply

Do you feel a duty to pay your taxes too because he's president?

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 08:57 PM | Reply

Do you feel a duty to pay your taxes too because he's president?

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 08:57 PM | Reply

Irrelevant question. it deflect from the matter at hand.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-25 09:00 PM | Reply

It's completely relevant. You think we have a patriotic obligation to Trump if he asks us to do something. I'm just asking if one of those obligations is paying your taxes.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-25 09:35 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

the ONLY reason Trump (Bannon) is picking any Dems, and even some Repubs, is too overrun their current seats and ruin their futures -- just as soon as he fires them.

#11 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-11-26 01:02 AM | Reply

Come on. You can't be serious about the tax issue. There are plenty of things to criticize trump about, but getting angry he didn't pay more taxes than he was legally obligated too, is really idiotic.

Let me know when you actively choose to not take deductions your accountant says you can. Then posturing about his completely legal use of deductions would be meaningful.

#12 | Posted by ABH at 2016-11-26 09:11 AM | Reply

Supporting Trump requires the memory and mental capacity of a goldfish.

RCADE is making an excellent point about our dear leader.

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2016-11-26 10:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

... getting angry he didn't pay more taxes than he was legally obligated too, is really idiotic.

If you actually knew what he did to dodge income taxes for 20 years, you wouldn't be saying that. The technique he used was sleazy and should have been prosecuted as a crime: He claimed his creditors' debt as his own for a near $1 billion loss knowing he'd never be asked to pay that debt.

Trump also claimed a salary of only $12,000 a year so he could avoid paying other taxes.

I don't see how any hard-working American who pays their taxes can defend a fat cat using these kinds of tricks to avoid paying all taxes. We don't get these kinds of breaks. Only the ultra-rich do.

It's like you want to be a sucker while the rich do nothing to support the country.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 10:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Okay, so let's so apply the Clinton email standard here. No one is trying to prosecute him for it... Not the IRS that has his taxes in hand, not the DOJ. If Hillary not being prosecuted is enough to proclaim her innocence, isn't lack of any prosecution a reasonable defense of his tax filings?

I know that comparing apples to oranges is not usually a good way to go about discussions, but you made a lot of accusations, the same way that have been made about Hillary and her emails.... That obviously the justice government doesn't see the same way.

His taxes were filled, the IRS is fine with it, so what basis do you have for claiming otherwise?. I am honestly curious, as I admit that I haven't researched it as much as I probably should.

#15 | Posted by ABH at 2016-11-26 10:49 AM | Reply

Whether Trump's tax scams were a crime depends on two things:

1. Whether it broke the law.

2. Whether the IRS is willing to prosecute.

You surely know that a lot of rich people use their high-priced army of lawyers to get away with things the rest of us would be prosecuted for.

Knowing what we know about his claimed loss of near $1 billion, it's pretty clear he got away with it because he's rich, not because it was proper.

When you claim a loss to avoid paying taxes, it's supposed to be a real loss. Claiming a debt you know you'll never be asked to repay is not a real loss. Having a debt of nearly $1 billion forgiven should have been nearly $1 billion in taxable income.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

By that same token, Hillary used connections, influence, and lawyers to get out of being prosecuted for improperly handling classified on a massive scale.

I don't know if wussy he did broke the law because I have zero knowledge of tax law. However I do know what Hillary food broke the law due to an intimate knowledge of the laws governing classified.

However, on both cases they are not guilty... Because prosecution wasn't even attempted. I may not agree with it. Vehemently.. But it doesn't change the facts.

#17 | Posted by ABH at 2016-11-26 11:47 AM | Reply

Hillary's email server was investigated for over a year and the subject of hundreds of news stories and thousands of document releases. Comey twice concluded in unprecedented public statements that there was no crime to prosecute.

Stop comparing that situation to Trump's tax scam. We haven't even seen Trump's tax returns.

One has nothing to do with the other. Repeated attempts to change the subject are just an admission there's no defense for what Trump did.

The start of this discussion was about whether any of us is obligated to serve Trump. Even if his tax dodge was 100% legal under laws created for fat cats like himself, it's wrong for someone generating hundreds of millions in earnings for himself to pay no income taxes.

Because he did that, and for other reasons, I think no American should feel a sense of duty or obligation to Trump. He is a sleaze who served himself only, never his country, his entire life. Even the simple act of paying your fair share of taxes, which millions of us have done each year, is something he couldn't manage to do.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | POSTED BY RCADE

I don't feel a duty to support him either, since I didn't vote for him anyways.
Just like I didn't feel any duty to vote for lesser evils, against Trump, or glass ceilings.

So I respect your feelings not to support, and even for your right to work against him, speak out against and derail Trump at every turn, and emotionally explode on everything he does.

I'm just disappointed you and others didn't respect a very large block of voters to express the same sentiment. That's why she lost.

#19 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-11-26 01:46 PM | Reply

Interesting to read how attempts at a bipartisan cabinet make that individual a persona non grata in the eyes of leftwingdingers.

Who knew that President-elect Donald J. Trump's attempts to unify America to thusly Make America Great Again, would make lefties so curmudgeonly!

Hop aboard the Trump Train, yall!

#20 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-11-26 04:07 PM | Reply

I'm just disappointed you and others didn't respect a very large block of voters to express the same sentiment.

Voting isn't about self-esteem. If people voted for a moronic candidate for moronic reasons, I'm under no obligation to pretend otherwise to soothe their fee-fees.

#21 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort