Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, he knows lots of potential women, but the only one he can name is Ivanka - because "she's popular". Snort!
""I can tell you everybody would say, 'Put Ivanka in, put Ivanka in,' you know that, right?" Trump added, according to a transcript given to Buzzfeed....
Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton later blasted him for the interview.
"We know a guy with a binder," she tweeted to Trump"
But, would Romney be willing to share that binder?
The entire non-controversy that the Democrats made into a "controversy" over Romney's statement that he had "binders full of women['s resumes], was just plain silly. Everyone (except Democrats, it would seem) knew what he meant. I can't believe Hillary would be so foolish to bring that up again.
His idea of putting Ivanka in a cabinet position because "she's popular" just goes to illustrate that Trump is not taking the office of the presidency seriously. It's all a big joke and ego trip for him.
The only reason people know who she is, is because she was born a Trump. She works for her father. She was on his reality TV show. She sells knock-off shoes to her father's groupies.
If Donny the Orange Wonder Boy thinks that is an outstanding cabinet-level resume, he should contact the Kardashians immediately. One call and.....done! He can tell America he wants Kim for Attorney General and Khloe for Secretary of Defense because their popular too. His groupies will be thrilled at another display of his decisive leadership.
The entire non-controversy that the Democrats made into a "controversy" over Romney's statement that he had "binders full of women['s resumes], was just plain silly. Everyone (except Democrats, it would seem) knew what he meant. I can't believe Hillary would be so foolish to bring that up again.
The fact remains is that it was quite effective at painting Romney as being out of touch.
Trump is famous for labeling his opponents - why should Democrats not do the same?
The entire non-controversy that the Democrats made into a "controversy" over Romney's statement that he had "binders full of women['s resumes], was just plain silly. Everyone (except Democrats, it would seem) knew what he meant. I can't believe Hillary would be so foolish to bring that up again.
Still not buying it. Who cares about binders full of women? And the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act won't accomplish a thing because the whole women make less money than men meme is not even true. Women make less money than men for various reasons, and Ivanka Trump was right about the reason why - motherhood. Women tend to choose fields that are less demanding of their time, or take time off work for longer periods of time than men. And Donald Trump actually hires a lot of women in executive positions and pays them better than Hillary does. I don't know what Romney's record on that was, but he was obviously trying to fill more cabinet positions with women during his time in office in MA, hence the binders full of women comment.
The gender pay gap is real. The reasons are more complex than you have put forth.
Romney's plan to close the gap? He had no plan. He tried to dodge the question with a circuitous answer that ended with binders full of women. He tried to dodge because he had no plan.
So the State Department, being one of several agencies (along with Treasury, Defense, and others) to approve this deal, is somehow evidence of pay to play? If that's the best evidence, then the evidence is non-existent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
I don't care about the money they made. It was just a response to the idea that we shouldn't have run a millionaire businessman in 2012, when all people who run for office are millionaires, and they don't even normally get that money in the private sector. Maybe I should have mentioned all the senators who went in with a little money and now are worth millions, such as Harry Reid.
Correction: a wealthy Wall Street businessman was not a wise choice in 2012, coming on the heels of the Great Recession financial crisis. The Clinton's have made a lot of money in the private sector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
As for the server, I am pretty sure it was so she could control the information she gave out in FOIA requests, and so she wouldn't have Obama looking at all her stuff. That's pure speculation on my part, but I make guesses based on history. It is the motive that I question. And she still deleted 30,000 emails after she was subpoenaed, and the FBI could not locate them on the server so they were scrubbed. Does that sound like something someone would do about emails about yoga lessons and wedding plans?
I do not expect that Hillary Clinton has been personally 1) involved in the technical setup of her server, 2) involved in the response to FOIA requests, 3) involved in removing emails from the server.
The Benghazi Committee has been a political witch hunt from day one. That's why Republicans have tried to make a mountain out of the mole hill that they "uncovered" with that process.
Personally, I didn't care for the man because in college he demonstrated in support of both the Vietnam War and the draft that fed it yet when his time came he failed to support his position, he ran off to France on a religious mission instead. IMO, a man who places his church ahead of his country belongs in the clergy, not the White House.
And a person like that has no business making SCOTUS nominations that would "convert" this country into a theocracy!
Oh, yeah... and who is part of a trump cabinet isn't a real issue? The only, only, only person he suggests is his own daughter. Yeah, that isn't an issue!
JFK was allowed to have his brother as Attorney General.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
