|
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 August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth.
Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it.
|
On August 05 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 07:38 Sermokala wrote:On August 05 2016 06:15 Doodsmack wrote:On August 05 2016 06:12 Sent. wrote:
There is nothing contradictory in outsourcing jobs as a businessman and advocating protectionism as a politician. It's like that case where Clinton successfully defended a pedophile. It was her job to defend him but it doesn't mean she as a politician shouldn't try to change the law to make the legal system less faulty. Or he could not outsource the jobs. Like he wants the companies he tries to shame to do. Good to know he also thinks government can control the economy to the extent that it's not the private sector's fault at all that jobs have been outsourced. It's the government's fault completely, and now that tariffs will be implemented, jobs will obviously come back, because the government is correcting its economy control method. Donald Trump just cares so much about the American worker. Which is why he imports temporary seasonal workers from other countries for his properties LOL. The problem with this is that its trump just taking advantage of the situation. While what hes advocating for is to change the system to make it not advantageous to just outsource the littlest of things. You are bashing him for being a smart businessman and for wanting to change the system that he knows is wrong and can only change by trying to change it. I agree. It's the same reason that he actively minimized his taxes by every means he knew how, legal and, given he refuses to release them, presumably less legal. And I would have done the same in his billionaire shoes. But he is going to get bludgeoned by this shit over and over in the run up to the election.
Just because something is legal (e.g. Someone found a tax-loophole that rich people can abuse) doesn't mean we shouldn't hold people to higher standards morally. He was "just a clever businessman" is such a stupid concept imo.
|
On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it.
He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral is entirely irrelevant.
Then he can do what please him in the meantime.
|
On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral have nothing to do with all that. Then he can do what please him in the meantime.
Yeah, I don't believe in the "agents of capitalism seek efficiency in obtaining wealth, therefore morals are no longer relevant." If buisness people want to behave that way, that is fine. But don't come back and try to flip the script and claim that they are pro-US workers or even give a shit.
There is inherently dishonest in claiming the system force them to do something, but they hated profiting from it the entire time.
|
On August 05 2016 08:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral have nothing to do with all that. Then he can do what please him in the meantime. Yeah, I don't believe in the "agents of capitalism seek efficiency in obtaining wealth, therefore morals are no longer relevant." If buisness people want to behave that way, that is fine. But don't come back and try to flip the script and claim that they are pro-US workers or even give a shit. There is inherently dishonest in claiming the system force them to do something, but they hated profiting from it the entire time.
And it is also inherently dishonest to refuse to put any blame on the system and ask people to follow "their morals". It's the best way for the most moral of us to stay poor and exploited.
|
On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral is entirely irrelevant. Then he can do what please him in the meantime.
It's not only happening in his name, he's also reaping the profit. Is is after all his business. So I don't see any reason why he's supposed to get any form of free pass here or why it's any less reprehensible than somebody doing the same thing in public office.
|
On August 05 2016 08:24 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral is entirely irrelevant. Then he can do what please him in the meantime. It's not only happening in his name, he's also reaping the profit. Is is after all his business. So I don't see any reason why he's supposed to get any form of free pass here or why it's any less reprehensible than somebody doing the same thing in public office.
Because if he was not doing it, he would effectively be disadvantaged over like everybody else ?
Trump ain't a saint, he indeed has been doing this for his own profit and should be accountable for it - but like every other rich guy. At least he still pays his taxes in the US ?
|
On August 05 2016 08:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:20 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral have nothing to do with all that. Then he can do what please him in the meantime. Yeah, I don't believe in the "agents of capitalism seek efficiency in obtaining wealth, therefore morals are no longer relevant." If buisness people want to behave that way, that is fine. But don't come back and try to flip the script and claim that they are pro-US workers or even give a shit. There is inherently dishonest in claiming the system force them to do something, but they hated profiting from it the entire time. And it is also inherently dishonest to refuse to put any blame on the system and ask people to follow "their morals". It's the best way for the most moral of us to stay poor and exploited.
It isn't a binary system where someone must behave that one way at all times. But Trump's track record is that of a con-artist that defrauds people and has been for decades. The system doesn't force him to make fake universities to prey on desperate people. Or claim that he loves US workers while outsources every thing he can. Clearly he can't love them that much because it gets in the way of his profits.
And again, no one forced them to partake in the flawed, mean system to begin with. And its a big system, they can seek out ways to do less or minimal harm to the people they claim to care about.
|
On August 05 2016 08:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:20 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral have nothing to do with all that. Then he can do what please him in the meantime. Yeah, I don't believe in the "agents of capitalism seek efficiency in obtaining wealth, therefore morals are no longer relevant." If buisness people want to behave that way, that is fine. But don't come back and try to flip the script and claim that they are pro-US workers or even give a shit. There is inherently dishonest in claiming the system force them to do something, but they hated profiting from it the entire time. And it is also inherently dishonest to refuse to put any blame on the system and ask people to follow "their morals". It's the best way for the most moral of us to stay poor and exploited.
I could justify stealing with the same logic, does moral behavior only matter when you're not put at a disadvantage? That's a pretty convenient guideline. If it's not possible to make a shitload of money while squeezing people in Bangladesh how about simply not doing it
|
On August 05 2016 08:29 Nyxisto wrote:
I could justify stealing with the same logic, does moral behavior only matter when you're not put at a disadvantage? That's a pretty convenient guideline. If it's not possible to make a shitload of money while squeezing people in Bangladesh how about simply not doing it
How is stealing legal ?
The economic game is centered around competition. This competition is supposed to be legally codified : everything that is not ruled as unlawful is part of the game. Yeah the game is corrupt.
|
'Don't hate the player hate the game' is a shitty logic because it's a justification for anything. There's always going to be another 'system' that you can put the blame on. The people are not responsible for Donald Trump's behavior. That's like a collective version of victim blaming.
|
Yes other businessmen also use the stuff Trump does. They however are not trying to run for President.
When you decide to run you know that every little thing you have ever done will be examined under a microscope.
There is a reason businessmen buy politicians rather then run themselves.
|
On August 05 2016 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:24 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral is entirely irrelevant. Then he can do what please him in the meantime. It's not only happening in his name, he's also reaping the profit. Is is after all his business. So I don't see any reason why he's supposed to get any form of free pass here or why it's any less reprehensible than somebody doing the same thing in public office. Because if he was not doing it, he would effectively be disadvantaged over like everybody else ?
Our clients do this all the time. And they are banks. They have rules about how people are treated that have no profit or PR reasoning. One of them has a rule if any defendant or opposing party has a death/suicide or serious injury that all litigation must be put on hold. Even if they have attorneys. There is no reason to do this beyond that they don't want to be assholes. And it cost them money.
|
On August 05 2016 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:
'Don't hate the player hate the game' is a shitty logic because it's a justification for anything. There's always going to be another 'system' that you can put the blame on. The people are not responsible for Donald Trump's behavior. That's like a collective version of victim blaming.
It's your logic that is justification to everything.
Let's get back to your exemple about stealing. Let's pretend stealing is not considering illegal, and like 50 to 60 % of the population does it. Then a guy comes and argue that it is bad and that we should make it illegal.
You come and tell him : "But you steal too ! It's not about stealing being legal or illegal, it's about you having morals or not." It's a defense of the statu quo.
In this case, Clinton has no moral for accepting money from Saudis, and let's not talk about her husband who ask so much money for talking.
On August 05 2016 08:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:26 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:24 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 08:14 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 08:10 Plansix wrote:On August 05 2016 08:07 WhiteDog wrote:On August 05 2016 07:58 Nyxisto wrote:On August 05 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2016 07:50 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this kind of hypocrisy clever when Trump does it and the primary reason not to vote for Hillary when she does it? Because Trump did it as a private individual and Hillary did it as a public official. But now Trump has blurred the line between his public and private life and the hypocrisy barrier has fallen. He's going to get torn apart on this one by the left. Not that his devotees will care but maybe the moderates might. The whole distinction is schizophrenic. The Bangladeshi kid doesn't care if it gets fucked by public or private business. Both private and public decisions on that scale effect the live of anybody through and through. It's like we're all supposed to collectively turn into sociopaths as long as it's 'business'? When Trump ruined a Scottish windpark project because he just had to build a shitty golf course on the coast does this affect climate change less because it's a private golf course? Do you really think that Trump, by himself, is managing his fiscal situation ? Really ? I know people with 1/100 the capital Trump has and who pay some guy to manage their wealth. Does it matter? It his name on the product. He takes credit for it if it is a success. He hires the people who make the decisions. Just because you are rich doesn't me you are not longer responsible for how your money is spent because you hired people to do it. He is fully responsible of course, because it is done under his name. I'm just saying that like all rich he exploit the weakness of the system, even if it goes against his values, without being schizophrenic at all. It's just that people do it for him. Moral is entirely irrelevant. Then he can do what please him in the meantime. It's not only happening in his name, he's also reaping the profit. Is is after all his business. So I don't see any reason why he's supposed to get any form of free pass here or why it's any less reprehensible than somebody doing the same thing in public office. Because if he was not doing it, he would effectively be disadvantaged over like everybody else ? Our clients do this all the time. And they are banks. They have rules about how people are treated that have no profit or PR reasoning. One of them has a rule if any defendant or opposing party has a death/suicide or serious injury that all litigation must be put on hold. Even if they have attorneys. There is no reason to do this beyond that they don't want to be assholes. And it cost them money.
You're telling me that banks refuse to give money to firms that relocate their production in Bengladesh ?
Another relevant exemple : Trump refuse to accept any kind of money from big pharma and firms. It's moral right ? It's better than what Clinton is doing right ?
In reality it's not more moral, it's just hypocritical. What does it mean ? That to run for the presidency you have to be as rich as Trump or you're immoral ? It's clearly the system that is in question here : how can a non rich politician run for president without asking money from big firms ?
|
|
|
That was over a year ago, after the mexicans are rapists thing.
|
On August 05 2016 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Let's get back to your exemple about stealing. Let's pretend stealing is not considering illegal, and like 50 to 60 % of the population does it. Then a guy comes and argue that it is bad and that we should make it illegal.
You come and tell him : "But you steal too ! It's not about stealing being legal or illegal, it's about you having morals or not." It's a defense of the statu quo.
In this case, Clinton has no moral for accepting money from Saudis, and let's not talk about her husband who ask so much money for talking.
Sure blaming Trump shouldn't mean that we should just sit around and not change the laws, for example what kind of trade we allow and what working rights companies abroad have to respect and so on, but surely at the same time this does in no way diminish the fact that Trump is a bad person for making profit off the system? If there is no ethical way to be a billionaire business mogul, simply don't be one. Legality or the state of the system don't take responsibility off any individual, especially someone supposed to lead a nation
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I know that there are sometimes benefactors of a corrupt system who come into office and use their insider knowledge to clean house in the government system. Putin did this in Russia, and there are a few cases of that in Latin America as well. If Trump were running on the anti corruption platform I would give him a lot of leeway for being a sleazy businessman. He is running on a really bizarre populist platform though, so I don't think his business experience is all that helpful here.
|
On August 05 2016 08:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
Let's get back to your exemple about stealing. Let's pretend stealing is not considering illegal, and like 50 to 60 % of the population does it. Then a guy comes and argue that it is bad and that we should make it illegal.
You come and tell him : "But you steal too ! It's not about stealing being legal or illegal, it's about you having morals or not." It's a defense of the statu quo.
In this case, Clinton has no moral for accepting money from Saudis, and let's not talk about her husband who ask so much money for talking.
Sure blaming Trump shouldn't mean that we should just sit around and not change the laws, for example what kind of trade we allow and what working rights companies abroad have to respect and so on, but surely at the same time this does in no way diminish the fact that Trump is a bad person for making profit off the system? If there is no ethical way to be a billionaire business mogul, simply don't be one. Legality or the state of the system don't take responsibility of any individual, especially someone supposed to lead a nation
Sure, Trump is corrupt, like (almost ?) all rich people in the world - except the few that won the lottery maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
