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 February 12 2018 04:18 Kyadytim wrote: It's a legit story, but it's being spun like a bottle in a group of drunk high school students. What's being left out is that the NSA didn't want Trump information, and when they got Trump information and not the cyber warfare stuff they were looking for, they cut ties with the Russian involved.
Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian, who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals. He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. Instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.
The United States intelligence officials said they cut off the deal because they were wary of being entangled in a Russian operation to create discord inside the American government. They were also fearful of political fallout in Washington if they were seen to be buying scurrilous information on the president.
The Times obtained four of the documents that the Russian in Germany tried to pass to American intelligence (The Times did not pay for the material). All are purported to be Russian intelligence reports, and each focuses on associates of Mr. Trump. Carter Page, the former campaign adviser who has been the focus of F.B.I. investigators, features in one; Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the billionaire Republican donors, in another.
Yet all four appear to be drawn almost entirely from news reports, not secret intelligence. They all also contain stylistic and grammatical usages not typically seen in Russian intelligence reports, said Yuri Shvets, a former K.G.B. officer who spent years as a spy in Washington before immigrating to the United States after the end of the Cold War.
The Intercept was clearly inspired by Intelligence Committee Republicans' approach to informing readers. Lies of omission are still lies.
Thanks, I was just trying to look up the NYT article for it. looks like the reason he didn't post that one is like you said, the intercept spins it so hard they're only technically telling the truth.
Wow, pasting motivation on me as if I am a clipboard. Thanks a lot. I was merely commenting that conservative meme factories would omit certain information and use the rest to continue their attack on the credibility of the intelligence community.
Also, skimming through both, I didn't see anything of note in the NYT report that wasn't also in The Intercept. I don't know what the hell you're talking about regarding your comments on The Intercept.
They think The Intercept is another arm of the Kremlin for some reason.
On February 12 2018 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:
This another one of those "If this was at Sheldon Adelson's property I would be okay with it" posts?
I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
(language warning)
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
Carlin was a genius, always right on the money. If people watched him back then, they wouldn't have to wonder, how the hell we got here. It's like if you go on that show called "worst cooks of America"... I mean, you can't be too surprised, when they trash your shitty food. (I don't own a TV, so I don't really know if that's accurate)
I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously far worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
That first claim sounds like a doozy, what evidence do you have of it?
The mentality I'm describing is the one outlined by Carlin. You're not wrong that it's not new (as it's context was Bill Clinton), and neither were the systemic issues the mentality I'm describing allowed as indicated by the whole "indirect corruption is better" argument.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
That first claim sounds like a doozy, what evidence do you have of it?
The mentality I'm describing is the one outlined by Carlin. You're not wrong that it's not new (as it's context was Bill Clinton), and neither were the systemic issues the mentality I'm describing allowed as indicated by the whole "indirect corruption is better" argument.
I don't have any strong evidence of it, just a gestalt impression of history and the relevant statistics and sociological factors like respect for the rule of law; but you are premising your argument on an other claim which also does no tseem to have much basis. I also maintain as a matter of policy that I shouldn't have to watch an unknown amount of youtube video to get your point; you should make it succinctly in addition to the video. if they aren't new, then they didn't "give room to his rise", they, and the room, were always there. which doesn' treally fit the actual timeline of the developments of the situation, wherein the degree of trump's behavior is well outside the norm. if the characteristics were always there, but trump is new, then we should look to what is new/what changed, rather than thins that were always present.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
That first claim sounds like a doozy, what evidence do you have of it?
The mentality I'm describing is the one outlined by Carlin. You're not wrong that it's not new (as it's context was Bill Clinton), and neither were the systemic issues the mentality I'm describing allowed as indicated by the whole "indirect corruption is better" argument.
I don't have any strong evidence of it, just a gestalt impression of history and the relevant statistics and sociological factors; but you are premising your argument on an other claim which also does no tseem to have much basis.
In that way we're even then.
EDIT: Toward you're edits... you said it yourself. Trump is what's new. A unique blend of brashness, stupidity, savvy, celebrity, wealth, power, privilege, etc... that has been brewing for generations. He's America's masterpiece.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
That first claim sounds like a doozy, what evidence do you have of it?
The mentality I'm describing is the one outlined by Carlin. You're not wrong that it's not new (as it's context was Bill Clinton), and neither were the systemic issues the mentality I'm describing allowed as indicated by the whole "indirect corruption is better" argument.
I don't have any strong evidence of it, just a gestalt impression of history and the relevant statistics and sociological factors; but you are premising your argument on an other claim which also does no tseem to have much basis.
In that way we're even then.
ok, neither of us has much bsais then; so i'll just look at your claim on its own and assess. I have nothing more to add, do you?
edit in response to your edit: trump being new does not explain the rise of trump, that's bootstrapping.
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
What's your position here exactly? I assume you don't think that enriching yourself using your public office isn't a bad thing. If the idea is "enriching yourself using public office is bad, but enriching your friends is just as bad," my immediate reaction is "I disagree," but more importantly, what does it matter? We can establish ethical guidelines to prevent people from using public office to enrich themselves. We could also try to establish ethical guidelines to prevent favoritism toward friends, and I'm in favor of that goal as well, but I think it's a lot harder to achieve.
Like, if I use my wife's catering service for the company Christmas party, and don't disclose the conflict of interest or bring someone else in to make the decision, the company could reasonably establish guidelines to try to prevent that, and/or punish me for the ethical violation. If I use my friend's catering service, but I have a contract with him where he'll split the profits with me, the company could reasonably establish guidelines to prevent that, and/or punish me for taking a bribe. But if I just say "Oo, I know a really good Mexican place I eat at all the time, we should ask them if they cater," hardly anyone thinks that would be a violation. How much am I allowed to chat with the owner of the Mexican place before it becomes an ethical violation? When do I have to start treating it as a CoI? Is it when we're on a first-name basis? When we start bowling together? What if it's a small town, and everybody knows everybody? Is there anyone in town that can possibly avoid a CoI?
Of course ethical guidelines don't make it impossible for people in positions of power to wrongly enrich themselves, but hopefully they at least make it harder. If I bowl with the owner of the Mexican place sometimes, maybe I can subtly endear myself to him by using his restaurant to cater. Maybe later on I can parley that into a personal favor, or a discount on something, or permission to marry his daughter, or w/e. But there's no immediate payout, and there's no guarantee that I'll get anything out of it down the line. If not for the ethical guidelines, I could just make him pay me half the profits.
I guess I think we have ethical guidelines in place for the same reason I have a (totally pickable) lock on my door – not because it's 100% protection against all possible wrongdoing, but because it'll make wrongdoing harder to do, so hopefully it'll be less profitable and people will do it less often.
Side note: Saying "this is why Trump won" has lost a lot of its rhetorical sting in the last year, so pardon me if "you thinking enriching yourself using a public office is especially unusual or heinous is why Trump is president" didn't quite leave me reeling.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
That first claim sounds like a doozy, what evidence do you have of it?
The mentality I'm describing is the one outlined by Carlin. You're not wrong that it's not new (as it's context was Bill Clinton), and neither were the systemic issues the mentality I'm describing allowed as indicated by the whole "indirect corruption is better" argument.
I don't have any strong evidence of it, just a gestalt impression of history and the relevant statistics and sociological factors; but you are premising your argument on an other claim which also does no tseem to have much basis.
In that way we're even then.
ok, neither of us has much bsais then; so i'll just look at your claim on its own and assess. I have nothing more to add, do you?
edit in response to your edit: trump being new does not explain the rise of trump, that's bootstrapping.
I don't think you're understanding. Before this moment in time the conditions weren't quite right and Trump wasn't quite ready, but they've been brewing for a long time in the conditions I'm describing and it was inevitable they would lead to the conditions of the rise of Trump, whatever you want to define them as.
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
What's your position here exactly? I assume you don't think that enriching yourself using your public office isn't a bad thing. If the idea is "enriching yourself using public office is bad, but enriching your friends is just as bad," my immediate reaction is "I disagree," but more importantly, what does it matter? We can establish ethical guidelines to prevent people from using public office to enrich themselves. We could also try to establish ethical guidelines to prevent favoritism toward friends, and I'm in favor of that goal as well, but I think it's a lot harder to achieve.
Like, if I use my wife's catering service for the company Christmas party, and don't disclose the conflict of interest or bring someone else in to make the decision, the company could reasonably establish guidelines to try to prevent that, and/or punish me for the ethical violation. If I use my friend's catering service, but I have a contract with him where he'll split the profits with me, the company could reasonably establish guidelines to prevent that, and/or punish me for taking a bribe. But if I just say "Oo, I know a really good Mexican place I eat at all the time, we should ask them if they cater," hardly anyone thinks that would be a violation. How much am I allowed to chat with the owner of the Mexican place before it becomes an ethical violation? When do I have to start treating it as a CoI? Is it when we're on a first-name basis? When we start bowling together? What if it's a small town, and everybody knows everybody? Is there anyone in town that can possibly avoid a CoI?
Of course ethical guidelines don't make it impossible for people in positions of power to wrongly enrich themselves, but hopefully they at least make it harder. If I bowl with the owner of the Mexican place sometimes, maybe I can subtly endear myself to him by using his restaurant to cater. Maybe later on I can parley that into a personal favor, or a discount on something, or permission to marry his daughter, or w/e. But there's no immediate payout, and there's no guarantee that I'll get anything out of it down the line. If not for the ethical guidelines, I could just make him pay me half the profits.
I guess I think we have ethical guidelines in place for the same reason I have a (totally pickable) lock on my door – not because it's 100% protection against all possible wrongdoing, but because it'll make wrongdoing harder to do, so hopefully it'll be less profitable and people will do it less often.
Side note: Saying "this is why Trump won" has lost a lot of its rhetorical sting in the last year, so pardon me if "you thinking enriching yourself using a public office is especially unusual or heinous is why Trump is president" didn't quite leave me reeling.
That Trump (or someone like him) was inevitably going to rise to "the top" of a system designed and ran as ours is.
The false (or in your case marginal) sense of security you're describing with the locks is kinda what I'm getting at.
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
Insider trading has been rife on Wall Street, academics conclude
The paper examines conduct at 497 financial institutions between 2005 and 2011, paying particular attention to individuals who had previously worked in the federal government, in institutions including the Federal Reserve. In the two years prior to the TARP, these people’s trading gave no evidence of unusual insight. But in the nine months after the TARP was announced, they achieved particularly good results. The paper concludes that “politically connected insiders had a significant information advantage during the crisis and traded to exploit this advantage.”
The other papers use data from 1999 to 2014 from Abel Noser, a firm used by institutional investors to track trading transaction costs. The data covered 300 brokers but the papers focus on the 30 biggest, through which 80-85% of the trading volume flowed. They find evidence that large investors tend to trade more in periods ahead of important announcements, say, which is hard to explain unless they have access to unusually good information.
On February 12 2018 11:05 Emnjay808 wrote: I’ve been watching too much mark dice lately. Can someone rec me a YouTube channel that’s the left equivalent of him, thanks
Wikipedia says:
Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice,[1] is an American YouTube personality,[3] conspiracy theorist and author[4] known for his conspiracy theories about secret societies such as The Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Grove events, Satanists and the Illuminati control of the world
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
Insider trading has been rife on Wall Street, academics conclude
The paper examines conduct at 497 financial institutions between 2005 and 2011, paying particular attention to individuals who had previously worked in the federal government, in institutions including the Federal Reserve. In the two years prior to the TARP, these people’s trading gave no evidence of unusual insight. But in the nine months after the TARP was announced, they achieved particularly good results. The paper concludes that “politically connected insiders had a significant information advantage during the crisis and traded to exploit this advantage.”
The other papers use data from 1999 to 2014 from Abel Noser, a firm used by institutional investors to track trading transaction costs. The data covered 300 brokers but the papers focus on the 30 biggest, through which 80-85% of the trading volume flowed. They find evidence that large investors tend to trade more in periods ahead of important announcements, say, which is hard to explain unless they have access to unusually good information.
But hey, it's better than if they didn't lock their doors ya know?
ok, so you refused to clarify the point that would explain your case, when I specifically asked for it. I asked for what changed, you said conditions weren't right, and now they are. you ignored my query for what changed, and now you assert a change and refuse to explain it. inevitable is a very strong claim, which you've no got a basis for; nor do you have enough credibility for your assessment on its own to be worth anything. So since you've got nothing, and are changing your story and arguing in bad form (not bad faith, just very sloppy form), I clearly won't get anything useful out of your points, if there even is any underlying merit to them, which is also doubtful.
On February 12 2018 11:32 zlefin wrote: ok, so you refused to clarify the point that would explain your case, when I specifically asked for it. I asked for what changed, you said conditions weren't right, and now they are. you ignored my query for what changed, and now you assert a change and refuse to explain it. inevitable is a very strong claim, which you've no got a basis for; nor do you have enough credibility for your assessment on its own to be worth anything. So since you've got nothing, and are changing your story and arguing in bad form (not bad faith, just very sloppy form), I clearly won't get anything useful out of your points, if there even is any underlying merit to them, which is also doubtful.
You do you.
That IgnE got it (and I don't think insulted me) makes me feel that I did fine making my point.
On February 12 2018 10:27 zlefin wrote: I don't see how that argument follows gh; two things can both be bad while one is still clearly far worse than the other. nor do I see a basis for the claim that THAT's how we got here as opposed to the many many other factors that have been pointed to.
I'm not sure that one is far worse than the other, and I'm not sure they are the ones you think they are.
Why is using a political fundraising event for self-enrichment obviously worse than using it as a way to exchange favors among elites toward a goal of self-enrichment?
As to the why, I don't mean to imply the sole reason for Trump is whatever you extracted from my argument, but that it speaks to a pervasive mentality that gave room to his rise.
because the history of effects of corruption on states indicates that more direct corruption tends to produce worse outcomes. a checks and balances system is about distributing power; forcing the power to be spread out amongst many elites prevents the concentration of power that leads to the worst abuses.
what exact mentality are you describing? cuz the one it sounds like you're describing isn't new at all, and hence wouldn't be relevant to trump's particular rise at all. but is simply a known eternal issue.
That first claim sounds like a doozy, what evidence do you have of it?
The mentality I'm describing is the one outlined by Carlin. You're not wrong that it's not new (as it's context was Bill Clinton), and neither were the systemic issues the mentality I'm describing allowed as indicated by the whole "indirect corruption is better" argument.
I don't have any strong evidence of it, just a gestalt impression of history and the relevant statistics and sociological factors; but you are premising your argument on an other claim which also does no tseem to have much basis.
In that way we're even then.
ok, neither of us has much bsais then; so i'll just look at your claim on its own and assess. I have nothing more to add, do you?
edit in response to your edit: trump being new does not explain the rise of trump, that's bootstrapping.
I don't think you're understanding. Before this moment in time the conditions weren't quite right and Trump wasn't quite ready, but they've been brewing for a long time in the conditions I'm describing and it was inevitable they would lead to the conditions of the rise of Trump, whatever you want to define them as.
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
What's your position here exactly? I assume you don't think that enriching yourself using your public office isn't a bad thing. If the idea is "enriching yourself using public office is bad, but enriching your friends is just as bad," my immediate reaction is "I disagree," but more importantly, what does it matter? We can establish ethical guidelines to prevent people from using public office to enrich themselves. We could also try to establish ethical guidelines to prevent favoritism toward friends, and I'm in favor of that goal as well, but I think it's a lot harder to achieve.
Like, if I use my wife's catering service for the company Christmas party, and don't disclose the conflict of interest or bring someone else in to make the decision, the company could reasonably establish guidelines to try to prevent that, and/or punish me for the ethical violation. If I use my friend's catering service, but I have a contract with him where he'll split the profits with me, the company could reasonably establish guidelines to prevent that, and/or punish me for taking a bribe. But if I just say "Oo, I know a really good Mexican place I eat at all the time, we should ask them if they cater," hardly anyone thinks that would be a violation. How much am I allowed to chat with the owner of the Mexican place before it becomes an ethical violation? When do I have to start treating it as a CoI? Is it when we're on a first-name basis? When we start bowling together? What if it's a small town, and everybody knows everybody? Is there anyone in town that can possibly avoid a CoI?
Of course ethical guidelines don't make it impossible for people in positions of power to wrongly enrich themselves, but hopefully they at least make it harder. If I bowl with the owner of the Mexican place sometimes, maybe I can subtly endear myself to him by using his restaurant to cater. Maybe later on I can parley that into a personal favor, or a discount on something, or permission to marry his daughter, or w/e. But there's no immediate payout, and there's no guarantee that I'll get anything out of it down the line. If not for the ethical guidelines, I could just make him pay me half the profits.
I guess I think we have ethical guidelines in place for the same reason I have a (totally pickable) lock on my door – not because it's 100% protection against all possible wrongdoing, but because it'll make wrongdoing harder to do, so hopefully it'll be less profitable and people will do it less often.
Side note: Saying "this is why Trump won" has lost a lot of its rhetorical sting in the last year, so pardon me if "you thinking enriching yourself using a public office is especially unusual or heinous is why Trump is president" didn't quite leave me reeling.
That Trump (or someone like him) was inevitably going to rise to "the top" of a system designed and ran as ours is.
The false (or in your case marginal) sense of security you're describing with the locks is kinda what I'm getting at.
I mean, what's your position about how the system should work? Do you think ethical guidelines shouldn't exist? Do you have ideas for guidelines that could be established to more effectively prevent the kinds of violations that the existing guidelines can't prevent? if your point is just that ethical guidelines are arcane and people don't understand them or what they're for, so they wind up having some pretty dumb opinions about what it means when people violate them, then I mean, yeah, I'm not gonna disagree with that. But that doesn't really prove that the system is bad (or at least, that another system would be better).
On February 12 2018 09:32 ChristianS wrote: I can't speak for Doodsmack, but my initial reaction is yes, it is a lot more problematic if it's Trump's company than if it's a friend of his. Not that patronizing a friend's business can't be a problem, and certainly it's another issue if the friend is bribing someone to get the business, but it's a lot clearer if you're enriching yourself using a position of power than if you're enriching a friend.
Like, if my job gave me some money to plan a company party, and I had a friend who's a caterer, I probably wouldn't think twice about using them to cater if I thought they'd be a good fit. If my wife was a caterer or something, I might mention that to my boss or something, but I'd feel that I ought to disclose that and have someone else decide whether to use her.
That's how Trump got here. Carlin did an amazing job of predicting Trump.
That people would think "oh yeah, using a political event to put a bunch of money in a wealthy political ally's pocket is way better than using it to enrich yourself" is how you get someone like Trump who lies about EVERYTHING to be seen as the more honest one.
Insider trading has been rife on Wall Street, academics conclude
The paper examines conduct at 497 financial institutions between 2005 and 2011, paying particular attention to individuals who had previously worked in the federal government, in institutions including the Federal Reserve. In the two years prior to the TARP, these people’s trading gave no evidence of unusual insight. But in the nine months after the TARP was announced, they achieved particularly good results. The paper concludes that “politically connected insiders had a significant information advantage during the crisis and traded to exploit this advantage.”
The other papers use data from 1999 to 2014 from Abel Noser, a firm used by institutional investors to track trading transaction costs. The data covered 300 brokers but the papers focus on the 30 biggest, through which 80-85% of the trading volume flowed. They find evidence that large investors tend to trade more in periods ahead of important announcements, say, which is hard to explain unless they have access to unusually good information.
But hey, it's better than if they didn't lock their doors ya know?
I know you're mocking me, but straight up, there are a lot of abusive behaviors Wall Street has been guilty of in the past that are illegal now. Yes, there are other abuses that we have not been able to curb, but what do you think that proves exactly?
EPT
)
