EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6431
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 16 2016 13:24 Nyxisto wrote: well the collusion of private and public interests is the literal definition of corruption. For a guy who was supposed to run against 'crooked Hillary' that's a strange thing to ignore. Which isn't something new to be fair, the last twenty issues that would bring any other person down didn't stop Trump either. welcome to America. He also seriously considered nominating someone who had an email issue that was universally considered (at least by everyone who was an expert on it) to be worse than what Clinton did. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
I wonder how all the people who were yelling at Hillary about "pay to play" feel about this. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On December 16 2016 13:50 Slaughter wrote: As Colbert put it."I'm sure we will learn about a lot of what is technically legal over the next four years". That was coming regardless of which one won the general. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you. 2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization. One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Hillary's email is incompetence that probably wouldn't have happened again and there is no evidence that she has ever used public positions for private gain, silly speaking fees aside. Trump is basically Janukovych and Berlusconi rolled into one. And it isn't new that corrupt demagogues pass the public vote more easily than competent politicians with small time blunders.The public opinion on what constitutes actual corruption has always been bad. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Washington (AFP) - Barack Obama on Thursday said the United States would retaliate against Russian hacking after the White House accused Vladimir Putin of direct involvement in cyberattacks designed to influence the US election. The outgoing US president's remarks dramatically upped the stakes in a dispute between the world's leading nuclear powers over interference that may have swayed last month's tight election in which Republican billionaire Donald Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action," Obama told NPR radio. "And we will, at a time and place of our own choosing." Pointing the finger at the Russian president over meddling in the election also puts the White House on a collision course with Trump, who has become increasingly isolated in questioning Russian involvement in hacks of Democratic Party emails that appeared to have slowed the momentum of Clinton's campaign. Obama is expected to be peppered with questions about the dispute and any subsequent action when he holds a news conference Friday at 2:15 pm (1915 GMT) before leaving for a vacation in Hawaii. Source More vague threats of action. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On December 16 2016 14:57 Nyxisto wrote: Profiteering may directly influence policy, and Trump does not just have a random hotel but billions of dollars all around the world. Hillary's email is incompetence that probably wouldn't have happened again and there is no evidence that she has ever used public positions for private gain, silly speaking fees aside. Trump is basically Janukovych and Berlusconi rolled into one. And it isn't new that corrupt demagogues pass the public vote more easily than competent politicians with small time blunders.The public opinion on what constitutes actual corruption has always been bad. Those "silly speaking fees" added up to more than $20,000,000 in just two years, from just her. That's not even touching stuff like the UBS thing. “A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.” Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.” Article | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
Thinking Hillary is corrupt is a defense for voting for Trump, but it's not even remotely a defense for Trump now that the election is over. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4553 Posts
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned in the thread  Now the question is: is the certificate forged, or is the proof forged? What a time to be alive. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
I always have to remember this little gem: www.youtube.com | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On December 16 2016 16:57 ZapRoffo wrote: In my eyes Hillary is irrelevant now, discussion shouldn't be Trump vs. Hillary, it should be what Trump's doing vs. what's proper for a president (and I think it's important for Democrats to make it clear this is the discussion). Thinking Hillary is corrupt is a defense for voting for Trump, but it's not even remotely a defense for Trump now that the election is over. No one's (other than other Hillary supporters) going to accept that discussion if the Democrat insisting it can't accept how problematic it is that they didn't call Hillary out before she was nominated. Of course some still look at the UBS thing (for example) as mere coincidence, or the lack of a clear and documented quid pro quo as enough to render it moot. They don't get to ride Trump and get taken seriously. Of course they shouldn't be getting dismissed by the same folks on the right who had a conniption about her associations either though. Note that Republicans don't get to play the "well you defended Hillary" card on those of us who didn't. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On December 16 2016 17:18 Laurens wrote: www.youtube.com Surprised this hasn't been mentioned in the thread Now the question is: is the certificate forged, or is the proof forged? What a time to be alive. Arpaio is a true birther and has had an axe to grind with Obama for years. His office has been investigating Obama's birth certificate since it was released in 2011, and has been claiming it's a forgery ever since. He recently lost reelection over a long history of terrible accusations. The U.S. department of justice said that he oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling by a law enforcement agency in U.S. history, and is currently facing federal prosecution. Basically, the dude is a giant piece of shit and this stunt of his is his last hurrah to stick it to Obama. This of course doesn't speak to whatever is in the video, but it couldn't possibly have come from a more biased source. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4742 Posts
On December 16 2016 14:57 Nyxisto wrote: Profiteering may directly influence policy, and Trump does not just have a random hotel but billions of dollars all around the world. Hillary's email is incompetence that probably wouldn't have happened again and there is no evidence that she has ever used public positions for private gain, silly speaking fees aside. Trump is basically Janukovych and Berlusconi rolled into one. And it isn't new that corrupt demagogues pass the public vote more easily than competent politicians with small time blunders.The public opinion on what constitutes actual corruption has always been bad. I think that before election Hilary was in position where she still could be hurt and critique was dmaaging her. Trump has crossed the line on that long before during the primaries. Nothing he said or did had any influance on his supporters. Not much changed since election. He is so ridiculous nothing new can hurt him. He is like mathematical infinity, doesnt matter how much shit You add to it. He is still in same place. | ||
|
Chewits
Northern Ireland1200 Posts
The point made that Trump appears to ignore his own intelligence agency is worrying | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12387 Posts
On December 16 2016 18:08 GreenHorizons wrote: No one's (other than other Hillary supporters) going to accept that discussion if the Democrat insisting it can't accept how problematic it is that they didn't call Hillary out before she was nominated. Of course some still look at the UBS thing (for example) as mere coincidence, or the lack of a clear and documented quid pro quo as enough to render it moot. They don't get to ride Trump and get taken seriously. Of course they shouldn't be getting dismissed by the same folks on the right who had a conniption about her associations either though. Note that Republicans don't get to play the "well you defended Hillary" card on those of us who didn't. He's still right on the core issue though. Donald vs Hillary is done. Even when it wasn't, the rollback to the other candidate to excuse your candidate was whataboutism and generally bad logic, unless the point risen was specifically a comparison between the two. Now that one of the candidates has actually lost, whataboutism is still as bad an argument as it used to be, and it deserves to be pointed out even more because it's not even a relevant bad argument, since the two people compared aren't in an equal position anymore. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On December 16 2016 18:39 Nebuchad wrote: He's still right on the core issue though. Donald vs Hillary is done. Even when it wasn't, the rollback to the other candidate to excuse your candidate was whataboutism and generally bad logic, unless the point risen was specifically a comparison between the two. Now that one of the candidates has actually lost, whataboutism is still as bad an argument as it used to be, and it deserves to be pointed out even more because it's not even a relevant bad argument, since the two people compared aren't in an equal position anymore. I agree, but with almost every assertion of the absurdity of Trump's indiscretions around general corruption/conflicts comes the implicit assertion that it's not happening under Democrats. As I've said before, I take it that Trump's are more direct and brazen, but finding the line between whataboutism and appropriate context is on those who saw the problems in each. People who either deny Hillary did anything problematic or that Trump's already showing seriously problematic choices regarding this conflict/corruption stuff are not arguing in good faith. They are exploiting the current situation to score political cheap shots while not genuinely opposing the underlying problem. Also, that article on Hillary is from 2015, they knew then, and said nothing/denied anything problematic about it. So most of their complaints ring hollow beyond the offense at Trump's brazenness. | ||
| ||
