|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The crooked Hillary line is ridiculous. Where is the quid pro quo? There is no proof, just more smoke like Whitewater. The cold reality is that Hillary is a center-left Democrat, and her speeches before wall street and other big corps are because center-left Democrats don't mind businesses. If you like taxes, then you better like profits. I say this as a center-left liberal voter and I like Hillary and Obama because they both understand the value of capitalism and business as they relate to center-left liberal tax/spend programs. Bernie would wage war on the 1% just for class warfare's sake, without the understanding that his terribly expensive programs need a tax base.
Now if you want actual crooked, check out Trump's actual mob ties.
Yes, Donald Trump has been linked to the mob
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/ted-cruz/yes-donald-trump-has-been-linked-mob/
"Trump was first tied to the mafia in the 1980s, when a $7.8 million subcontract for Trump Plaza was awarded to S&A Concrete, according to Fortune. The company, as Cruz correctly says, was partially owned by Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno, the boss of the Genovese crime family."
Just What Were Donald Trump's Ties to the Mob?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910
|
"mob ties"
I mean he paid companies to build things, maybe I'm naive but whats nefarious about that? It's not like he hired them to whack Jeb Bush.
|
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-suppressed-haitis-minimum-wage/ In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti's government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti's president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day). ...The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) had been closely monitoring the situation in the garment manufacturing sector for a long time. In 2006, Congress passed the HOPE bill (which stood for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) and provided duty-free entry to garments manufactured in Haiti for U.S. companies. That body also passed an updated version of the bill (HOPE II) in 2008, which mandated a framework for labor reform in factories. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, it was exactly these efforts that the United States claimed would be jeopardized by a higher minimum wage.
So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate. "the establishment" needs to die.
|
On May 28 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:
"mob ties"
I mean he paid companies to build things, maybe I'm naive but whats nefarious about that? It's not like he hired them to whack Jeb Bush.
Trump is brutal, but not enough to actually physically harm something as defenseless as Jeb
On May 28 2016 03:14 xM(Z wrote:http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-suppressed-haitis-minimum-wage/ Show nested quote +In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti's government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti's president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day). ... Show nested quote +The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) had been closely monitoring the situation in the garment manufacturing sector for a long time. In 2006, Congress passed the HOPE bill (which stood for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) and provided duty-free entry to garments manufactured in Haiti for U.S. companies. That body also passed an updated version of the bill (HOPE II) in 2008, which mandated a framework for labor reform in factories. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, it was exactly these efforts that the United States claimed would be jeopardized by a higher minimum wage.
So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate. "the establishment" needs to die.
Gee, it's almost like weak, failed states are vulnerable to the wishes of powerful countries. How would Haiti be doing right now without international help? How is their architecture?
|
Almost all criminal activity with organized crime is done under the guise of regular businesses. That is not an indictment at face value, but any business dealing with known organized crime comes with the specter of criminal activity.
|
On May 28 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:
"mob ties"
I mean he paid companies to build things, maybe I'm naive but whats nefarious about that? It's not like he hired them to whack Jeb Bush.
How much business with the mob would HRC have to do before you called her crooked? Imagine your thoughts if even a dollar got into the Clinton Foundation.
How much business with the mob would Trump have to do before you called him crooked? He has done tens of millions.
Check your biases here. This is a good opportunity.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910
From the beginning, Trump tried to have it both ways. While he leveraged Roy Cohn’s mob contacts in New York, he was telling the FBI he wanted nothing to do with organized crime in Atlantic City, and even proposed putting an undercover FBI agent in his casinos. In April of 1981, when he was considering building a New Jersey casino, he expressed concern about his reputation in a meeting with the FBI, according to an FBI document in my possession and which the site Smoking Gun also posted. “Trump advised Agents that he had read in the press media and had heard from various acquaintances that Organized Crime elements were known to operate in Atlantic City,” the FBI recorded. “Trump also expressed at this meeting the reservation that his life and those around him would be subject to microscopic examination. Trump advised that he wanted to build a casino in Atlantic City but he did not wish to tarnish his family’s name.”
Some of the dealings came at a remove. In Atlantic City, Trump built on property where mobsters controlled parts of the adjoining land needed for parking. He paid $1.1 million for about a 5,000-square-foot lot that had been bought five years earlier for just $195,000. The sellers were Salvy Testa and Frank Narducci Jr., a pair of hitmen for Atlantic City mob boss Nicky Scarfo who were known as the Young Executioners.
Trump later boasted in a sworn affidavit in a civil case that he made the deals himself, his “unique contribution” making the land deals possible. In formal hearings Trump later defended Sullivan and Shapiro as “well thought of.”
So why did Trump repeatedly do business with mob owned businesses and mob-controlled unions? Why go down the aisle with an expensive mobbed-up concrete firm when other options were available?
“Why’d Donald do it?” Barrett said when I put the question to him. “Because he saw these mob guys as pathways to money, and Donald is all about money.”
|
From what I hear, if you're in the construction trade in NYC, there's probably some mob connections somewhere. Tha'ts also the case for some other places. This is very hearsay info though.
|
On May 28 2016 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 01:56 SolaR- wrote:
Arguing that Clinton isn't corrupt is ridiculous. Evidence isn't needed. The proof is in the pudding.
Politicians who have been key figures in the establishment for as long as she has are bound to be corrupt to some degree. It is human nature, and it has been proven that our current political system is flawed and potent with corruption. It is only natural for someone like Hillary who's ego is so dependent on her political success to succumb to the advantages of corruption. You don't see the problem with saying evidence isn't needed? What good is a belief without evidence?
I would like to use evidence on specific details of Hillary and corruption but when speaking generally, i think we should use some common sense.
Can I say without a doubt she is corrupt? No. However, people make logicial assumptions all the time. And I'm gonna go a Tom Brady and say that it is more probable than not.
It is logical she is corrupt. Here is why:
1. She has a passionate desire to rise in political power and has proven she will say anything to gain approval.
2. The evidence of her corruption is debatable, however she is often involved in shady situations.
3. She surrounds herself and is funded by rich and powerful people with their own agendas.
4. It has been proven that Washington has become a cesspool for corruption. Why would Hillary be excluded? She is one of the most prominent figures in politics.
5. Human nature. Morality is relative and almost all people are willing to bend their own morals for their own gain. Most people are never even given the chance to be tempted by the level of power she is around everyday. Combine the temptation with the desire to succeed and the ability to cover your tracks and that leaves you with a nasty formula for corruption.
6. Honesty. If i was in her same situation with the ambition to become president. I would be corrupt for my own gain. Politics is a dog eat dog world.
Many more i could probably list.
There is no evidence for alien life, but there are surrounding facts and logic that suggest there is life elsewhere in the universe. You can make logical assertions without hard evidence.
I just find it asinine to defend Hillary to such a degree that you guys are doing given the nature of politics.
|
By that argument, all politicians are corrupt and so are business people. And Judges. And anyone in any position of power for a period of time.
|
On May 28 2016 03:22 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On May 28 2016 01:56 SolaR- wrote:
Arguing that Clinton isn't corrupt is ridiculous. Evidence isn't needed. The proof is in the pudding.
Politicians who have been key figures in the establishment for as long as she has are bound to be corrupt to some degree. It is human nature, and it has been proven that our current political system is flawed and potent with corruption. It is only natural for someone like Hillary who's ego is so dependent on her political success to succumb to the advantages of corruption. You don't see the problem with saying evidence isn't needed? What good is a belief without evidence? I would like to use evidence on specific details of Hillary and corruption but when speaking generally, i think we should use some common sense. Can I say without a doubt she is corrupt? No. However, people make logicial assumptions all the time. And I'm gonna go a Tom Brady and say that it is more probable than not. It is logical she is corrupt. Here is why: 1. She has a passionate desire to rise in political power and has proven she will say anything to gain approval. 2. The evidence of her corruption is debatable, however she is often involved in shady situations. 3. She surrounds herself and is funded by rich and powerful people with their own agendas. 4. It has been proven that Washington has become a cesspool for corruption. Why would Hillary be excluded? She is one of the most prominent figures in politics. 5. Human nature. Morality is relative and almost all people are willing to bend their own morals for their own gain. Most people are never even given the chance to be tempted by the level of power she is around everyday. Combine the temptation with the desire to succeed and the ability to cover your tracks and that leaves you with a nasty formula for corruption. 6. Honesty. If i was in her same situation with the ambition to become president. I would be corrupt for my own gain. Politics is a dog eat dog world. Many more i could probably list. There is no evidence for alien life, but there are surrounding facts and logic that suggest there is life elsewhere in the universe. You can make logical assertions without hard evidence. I just find it asinine to defend Hillary to such a degree that you guys are doing given the nature of politics.
All expect #4 apply to Trump aswell. Why are we not worried about the corruption on Trump?
(fine fine, #3 is not entirely true. He is the rich and powerful person with his own agenda. He just cut out the middleman).
|
On May 28 2016 03:26 Plansix wrote:
By that argument, all politicians are corrupt and so are business people. And Judges. And anyone in any position of power for a period of time.
That is why we gotta burn down the establishment man! Vote Bernie XOR Trump if you wanna see it all burn. Everyone who has a job or worked or has any money is corrupt!
Bernie has spent his life in politics but isn't corrupt because he never actually made any tough choices and contributed to any legislation!
Trump deals with the mob and brags about buying politicians and lies about his wealth and sexual conquests but that doesn't make him corrupt! He's a straight shooter who changes his positions on a daily basis, thus speaking his mind bro.
Hillary is corrupt because she keeps adjusting her positions to reflect mainstream Democratic party values! Such hypocrisy!
|
The only one of those that doesn't apply to Trump is probably 4), but he spent tons of time manipulating local/city politics that are just as corrupt to protect his businesses. For 3), he literally makes a point of surrounding himself with powerful people, including Clinton back in the early 2000s-I think he's actually mentioned how well he knows important people over and over again on this campaign trail.
In that sense, indicting her as corrupt on limited evidence makes about as much sense as indicting Trump as corrupt on limited hard evidence (which I'd be pretty dubious about).
Edit: I mean, it's probably true that the best and least corrupt president would be someone who doesn't actually want to be president and doesn't have the power to be president, but have fun getting them within sniffing distance of the White House in a capitalist, power-idolizing society. No amount of campaign finance reform is going to accomplish that.
|
On May 27 2016 17:03 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2016 15:31 pmh wrote:On May 27 2016 06:48 DickMcFanny wrote:On May 27 2016 05:52 LegalLord wrote:
I see explicit religious conservatism being a significant driving force for elections for about one more generation. It's not quite dead yet but the youth of today are less religious than most by a significant margin. As opposed to Europe, where religious conservatism will be an increasingly big factor. If you think YOUR fundamentalists are crazy, you're in for a rude surprise. American religious nuts don't want to sell wedding cakes to gays, our religious nuts want to burn gays on the stake. American religious nuts cry about people who leave the religious, our religious nuts want to kill people who leave the religion. American religious nuts discuss which bathroom transgenders are allowed to use, our religious nuts discuss which torture method should be used on transgenders. Hmm I don't think this is the case. Its not religious conservatism that is increasing in Europe,as a counter force to the refuge and immigration issue. What is increasing is (social) nationalism. The usa is far more religious then specially protestant northern Europe,and the extremes are bigger. Its kinda interesting that catolisism proved to be more durable then Protestantism in Europe. Religiously conservative protestants are indeed becoming a rare breed around the world, including Europe. However, I don't think that's what he's referencing. I believe he is referring to the immigration of Muslim people as the culprit of increasing religious conservatism. They are the ones that he is accusing of wanting to burn gays at the stake, kill apostates, and torture transgenders.
"Accusing"? Are you for real?
|
On May 28 2016 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:
"mob ties"
I mean he paid companies to build things, maybe I'm naive but whats nefarious about that? It's not like he hired them to whack Jeb Bush. Trump is brutal, but not enough to actually physically harm something as defenseless as Jeb Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:14 xM(Z wrote:http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-suppressed-haitis-minimum-wage/ In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti's government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti's president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day). ... The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) had been closely monitoring the situation in the garment manufacturing sector for a long time. In 2006, Congress passed the HOPE bill (which stood for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) and provided duty-free entry to garments manufactured in Haiti for U.S. companies. That body also passed an updated version of the bill (HOPE II) in 2008, which mandated a framework for labor reform in factories. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, it was exactly these efforts that the United States claimed would be jeopardized by a higher minimum wage.
So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate. "the establishment" needs to die. Gee, it's almost like weak, failed states are vulnerable to the wishes of powerful countries. How would Haiti be doing right now without international help? How is their architecture?
How would they be doing without international help?
Horribly.
Why would they be doing horribly?
Because those same "international helpers" have brutally exploited and enslaved Haiti and many other countries around the world for centuries.
You don't get to completely fuck up a country and then say, "But at least we're helping them now!" when their horrible conditions are almost entirely due to your exploitation.
|
On May 28 2016 03:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only one of those that doesn't apply to Trump is probably 4), but he spent tons of time manipulating local/city politics that are just as corrupt to protect his businesses. For 3), he literally makes a point of surrounding himself with powerful people, including Clinton back in the early 2000s-I think he's actually mentioned how well he knows important people over and over again on this campaign trail.
In that sense, indicting her as corrupt on limited evidence makes about as much sense as indicting Trump as corrupt on limited hard evidence (which I'd be pretty dubious about).
Edit: I mean, it's probably true that the best and least corrupt president would be someone who doesn't actually want to be president and doesn't have the power to be president, but have fun getting them within sniffing distance of the White House in a capitalist, power-idolizing society. No amount of campaign finance reform is going to accomplish that.
and that's my plan for getting my non-corrupt self into the whitehouse! so far I've made it up to: vaguely knowing a few people in local government.
|
On May 28 2016 03:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only one of those that doesn't apply to Trump is probably 4), but he spent tons of time manipulating local/city politics that are just as corrupt to protect his businesses. For 3), he literally makes a point of surrounding himself with powerful people, including Clinton back in the early 2000s-I think he's actually mentioned how well he knows important people over and over again on this campaign trail.
In that sense, indicting her as corrupt on limited evidence makes about as much sense as indicting Trump as corrupt on limited hard evidence (which I'd be pretty dubious about).
Edit: I mean, it's probably true that the best and least corrupt president would be someone who doesn't actually want to be president and doesn't have the power to be president, but have fun getting them within sniffing distance of the White House in a capitalist, power-idolizing society. No amount of campaign finance reform is going to accomplish that. and that's my plan for getting my non-corrupt self into the whitehouse! so far I've made it up to: vaguely knowing a few people in local government.
The new requirement is knowing zero people in government to assure zero corruption.
|
On May 28 2016 03:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:
"mob ties"
I mean he paid companies to build things, maybe I'm naive but whats nefarious about that? It's not like he hired them to whack Jeb Bush. How much business with the mob would HRC have to do before you called her crooked? Imagine your thoughts if even a dollar got into the Clinton Foundation. How much business with the mob would Trump have to do before you called him crooked? He has done tens of millions. Check your biases here. This is a good opportunity.
I don't think buying land and paying builders is a nefarious thing to do because it's not related to the mob-ness of the other party. I wouldn't hold it against you if you ate at Fat Tony's Delicious Pizzeria That's Probably A Front. All I see here is an attempt at guilt by association. With Hillary, the question, no matter which side you fall on, is different because it pertains directly to the job of being an elected official. Who politicians get money from and then do special favors for is a very interesting subject. "Man buys acreage" isn't. Now if you think Trump laundered money, that'd be something worth investigating.
|
On May 28 2016 03:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only one of those that doesn't apply to Trump is probably 4), but he spent tons of time manipulating local/city politics that are just as corrupt to protect his businesses. For 3), he literally makes a point of surrounding himself with powerful people, including Clinton back in the early 2000s-I think he's actually mentioned how well he knows important people over and over again on this campaign trail.
In that sense, indicting her as corrupt on limited evidence makes about as much sense as indicting Trump as corrupt on limited hard evidence (which I'd be pretty dubious about).
Edit: I mean, it's probably true that the best and least corrupt president would be someone who doesn't actually want to be president and doesn't have the power to be president, but have fun getting them within sniffing distance of the White House in a capitalist, power-idolizing society. No amount of campaign finance reform is going to accomplish that.
Exactly. I never said that Trump wasn't involved in corruption. He probably is to some degree, most powerful people are. Obviously there are different degrees of corruption.
Some people on here though are so dismissive on any argument or loose facts suggesting that hillary is corrupt. That in itself is denial and lack of objectivity and honesty.
|
On May 28 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 28 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:
"mob ties"
I mean he paid companies to build things, maybe I'm naive but whats nefarious about that? It's not like he hired them to whack Jeb Bush. How much business with the mob would HRC have to do before you called her crooked? Imagine your thoughts if even a dollar got into the Clinton Foundation. How much business with the mob would Trump have to do before you called him crooked? He has done tens of millions. Check your biases here. This is a good opportunity. I don't think buying land and paying builders is a nefarious thing to do because it's not related to the mob-ness of the other party. I wouldn't hold it against you if you ate at Fat Tony's Delicious Pizzeria That's Probably A Front. All I see here is an attempt at guilt by association. With Hillary, the question, no matter which side you fall on, is different because it pertains directly to the job of being an elected official. Who politicians get money from and then do special favors for is a very interesting subject. "Man buys acreage" isn't. Now if you think Trump laundered money, that'd be something worth investigating.
The "mob-ness" of the perceived public transaction is what is important, not the actual substance of what went down. At the end of the day, when one decides to do public business with an entity that has known mob ties, the association is there no matter what.
|
lol @ liberals defending the Clinton foundation. You know if it was the "Bush:" foundation or whatever, the same people would be lacing into it/him instead of defending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
