|
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. |
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.
This is some amazing selective reasoning right here. Clinton accepts money for speeches, therefore corruption. Trump gives money to known mob members for work, no ties to criminal activity because that would be guilty by association.
|
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.
Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption.
|
On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption.
Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption.
|
On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote: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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption.
And here we see the birth of the naive belief that "scrap the whole thing" is a reasonable solution.
|
On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote: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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption.
To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here.
Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility.
I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense.
|
On May 28 2016 03:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:37 oBlade wrote: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. This is some amazing selective reasoning right here. Clinton accepts money for speeches, therefore corruption. Trump gives money to known mob members for work, no ties to criminal activity because that would be guilty by association.
I specifically said it doesn't matter which side you fall on with Clinton (and I didn't mention speeches). They're just independent questions.
Trump gave contracts to companies to build shit. You might have an accountant who's a convicted sex offender, but unless you hired him to rape people, I'm not going to be bothered, no matter how many people run the story to try and smear you.
|
On May 28 2016 03:48 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote: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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption. To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here. Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility. I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense.
I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**.
*If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs.
** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage.
|
|
|
On May 28 2016 04:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:48 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote: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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption. To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here. Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility. I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense. I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**. *If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs. ** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage.
I wish i had that faith in humanity but i don't.
|
On May 28 2016 04:04 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 28 2016 03:48 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote: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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption. To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here. Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility. I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense. I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**. *If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs. ** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage. I wish i had that faith in humanity but i don't.
I blame Bernie. He is running on an Occupy Wall Street platform of waging war on the 1% so Hillary had to pretend she wasn't a center-left liberal. HRC has always been okay with financiers and the continuing existence of Wall Street. So is Obama. So was Clinton1. But because Bernie is in the race she has to dance around acting like she is going to stick it to Wall Street when we all know she is just going to keep up the current Obama regulations.
|
On May 28 2016 04:13 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 04:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 28 2016 03:48 SolaR- wrote:On May 28 2016 03:44 Plansix wrote:On May 28 2016 03:42 SolaR- wrote: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. Most likely, yes. Power is a breeding ground for corruption. Then, by that argument, we can't hold it against anyone who participates in the system. Or all of our discussions are about relative corruption. To some degree true. Relative corruption is important here. Some people on here have flat out said that hillary is not corrupt and laugh at even the hint of possibility. I am merely demonstrating that is absurd, and some people need to be a little bit more honest about Hillary instead of just jumping to her defense. I will say it. She is not corrupt at all*. When she got paid for Wall Street speeches and Corporate board speeches, it was because she wanted money and doesn't hate the people she was speaking to. If you look at her actual policy history, there is nothing to suggest she is some Occupy Wall Street burn it all down politician. Center-left politicians don't want to destroy the financial system. The Clinton2 administration, much like the Obama and Clinton1 administration, will not destroy Wall Street. She was never corrupted by Wall Street and turned away from wanting to burn it all down because she never wanted to burn it all down! She is perfectly happy to continue the Democratic party tradition of keeping the financial system working, but regulated**. *If you disagree, then you need to show where Money was provided to Clinton, and then in return she changed her position based on that money and against her previously held beliefs. ** Contrast the Wall Street boom days where investment bankers had models and bottles on Saturdays during the Bush2 administration to the relative poverty during the Obama era. Dodd-Frank did real damage. I wish i had that faith in humanity but i don't. I blame Bernie. He is running on an Occupy Wall Street platform of waging war on the 1% so Hillary had to pretend she wasn't a center-left liberal. HRC has always been okay with financiers and the continuing existence of Wall Street. So is Obama. So was Clinton1. But because Bernie is in the race she has to dance around acting like she is going to stick it to Wall Street when we all know she is just going to keep up the current Obama regulations.
I can assure you it has nothing to do with Bernie.
|
There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other.
|
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/during-1999-run-trump-refused-to-pay-ex-wifes-alimony-when-s?bftwnews&utm_term=.gewd6OWx7#.wbJk913Xa
"When Donald Trump publicly floated the idea of running for president in 1999, his ex-wife Marla Maples made it clear she would spill the beans on her ex-husband if he were to make it to the general election.
“If he is really serious about being president and runs in the general election next year, I will not be silent,” Maples told London Telegraph. “I will feel it is my duty as an American citizen to tell the people what he is really like.”
The reaction from Trump and his attorney was swift and brutal. They launched a full-court effort in the press to discredit Maples and withheld an alimony payment to “send a message.” The episode illustrates how Trump uses character assassination and threats to quash any opposition. Maples has largely remained silent on Trump’s 2016 candidacy.
“She’s pretty upset that she hasn’t been in the limelight,” Trump told reporters about Maples, according to the Associated Press. “But she got a little limelight today. I guess she wants her day in the sun.”
“It’s too bad the venom that she’s got, and I thought I was very nice to her,” Trump said of Maples to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. “I’ve taken good care of her. But she’s got a lot of venom and it’s too bad. And it’s just not becoming of her, but I think she’ll probably be more responsible.”"
|
On May 28 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other.
Trump had 16 people against him and he did fine.
|
Thin skinned baby. His ex-wife says mean things about him and he going full lawsuit. And then says it’s her fault for not being responsible.
And this guy is going to control part of the CIA and FBI.
On May 28 2016 04:26 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other. Trump had 16 people against him and he did fine.
Different time in the campaign and they were not all going after him. And the large, multi-person debates were SHIT shows. There is no reason for Clinton to do this, since refusing doesn't do that much harm and she never agreed to randomly debate Trump before the convention.
|
We are citing buzzfeed now?
|
On May 28 2016 04:28 Plansix wrote:Thin skinned baby. His ex-wife says mean things about him and he going full lawsuit. And then says it’s her fault for not being responsible. And this guy is going to control part of the CIA and FBI. Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:26 zeo wrote:On May 28 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other. Trump had 16 people against him and he did fine. Different time in the campaign and they were not all going after him. And the large, multi-person debates were SHIT shows. There is no reason for Clinton to do this, since refusing doesn't do that much harm and she never agreed to randomly debate Trump before the convention.
She backed out of the debate she promised she would do before Trump got invited, trying to use Trump being there as an excuse not to show is ridiculous.
|
Buzzfeed's reporting is ok and is only improving. The guy who reported the piece is pretty creditable from a quick review.
On May 28 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:28 Plansix wrote:Thin skinned baby. His ex-wife says mean things about him and he going full lawsuit. And then says it’s her fault for not being responsible. And this guy is going to control part of the CIA and FBI. On May 28 2016 04:26 zeo wrote:On May 28 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other. Trump had 16 people against him and he did fine. Different time in the campaign and they were not all going after him. And the large, multi-person debates were SHIT shows. There is no reason for Clinton to do this, since refusing doesn't do that much harm and she never agreed to randomly debate Trump before the convention. She backed out of the debate she promised she would do before Trump got invited, trying to use Trump being there as an excuse not to show is ridiculous.
It also removes any reason why she would agree to it now. Before Bernie said she agreed to it, but now he is changed the terms completely. Adding Trump does not help his case, though it does get him more cameras.
|
On May 28 2016 04:35 Plansix wrote:Buzzfeed's reporting is ok and is only improving. The guy who reported the piece is pretty creditable from a quick review. Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2016 04:28 Plansix wrote:Thin skinned baby. His ex-wife says mean things about him and he going full lawsuit. And then says it’s her fault for not being responsible. And this guy is going to control part of the CIA and FBI. On May 28 2016 04:26 zeo wrote:On May 28 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other. Trump had 16 people against him and he did fine. Different time in the campaign and they were not all going after him. And the large, multi-person debates were SHIT shows. There is no reason for Clinton to do this, since refusing doesn't do that much harm and she never agreed to randomly debate Trump before the convention. She backed out of the debate she promised she would do before Trump got invited, trying to use Trump being there as an excuse not to show is ridiculous. It also removes any reason why she would agree to it now. Before Bernie said she agreed to it, but now he is changed the terms completely. Adding Trump does not help his case, though it does get him more cameras.
Why wouldn't he invite Trump? Hillary made it clear her word was worthless when she said she wasn't going to debate like she promised. She wasn't going regardless of what Bernie did. Trump being there isn't an excuse to not show. She should be willing to debate "anytime, anywhere", but of course again they are just her words, which aren't worth the oxygen expelled.
|
On May 28 2016 04:35 Plansix wrote:Buzzfeed's reporting is ok and is only improving. The guy who reported the piece is pretty creditable from a quick review. Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2016 04:28 Plansix wrote:Thin skinned baby. His ex-wife says mean things about him and he going full lawsuit. And then says it’s her fault for not being responsible. And this guy is going to control part of the CIA and FBI. On May 28 2016 04:26 zeo wrote:On May 28 2016 04:21 Plansix wrote:There is zero reason to go to that debate. It would be Sanders and Trump against her the entire time. They would barely go after each other. Trump had 16 people against him and he did fine. Different time in the campaign and they were not all going after him. And the large, multi-person debates were SHIT shows. There is no reason for Clinton to do this, since refusing doesn't do that much harm and she never agreed to randomly debate Trump before the convention. She backed out of the debate she promised she would do before Trump got invited, trying to use Trump being there as an excuse not to show is ridiculous. It also removes any reason why she would agree to it now. Before Bernie said she agreed to it, but now he is changed the terms completely. Adding Trump does not help his case, though it does get him more cameras.
Wasn't buzzfeed the organization that asked Obama about straight white males on the supreme court a couple weeks ago lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
