|
If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation.
Am I getting that right?
Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
It only furthers the theory that Trumps foreign policy plans all revolve around who is willing to lend/give him money.
|
On December 07 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote:
It only furthers the theory that Trumps foreign policy plans all revolve around who is willing to lend/give him money.
This isn't just a Republican thing. Typically the same thing happens except it's less direct with Democrats (providing some level of plausible deniability). I suppose one could argue it diffuses it's effectiveness or increases it's cost but the underlying concept has always been a part of US politics.
|
That thing comes out swinging with what can only be called conspiracy theory speculation. Even Trey Gowdy said that based on the evidence he was permitted to see, the FBI was doing "what every American should want them to do" in initiating the investigation. The claim that there was a grand Obama cabal doing nothing more than surveilling trumps team is pretty stupid.
|
On December 07 2018 01:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 13:45 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2018 09:48 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2018 09:14 IgnE wrote:
you know dude youve brought up uranium one so much recently that i just tried to read through the wiki article on it, but i gave up trying to understand why you think its so significant in comparison to trump If you want to understand Uranium One, you need to read this piece by John Solomon. Frankly, his reporting is must-read right now anyway because he's someone who obviously has sources who are in the know regarding whatever investigation is currently taking place (and as an aside, he was getting ready to drop some really big news on Monday before Bush died over the weekend). Here's a brief summary of Uranium One: 1) At the time of the Uranium One deal, the FBI was aware of significant criminal activity (including bribes and kickbacks) regarding the Russian nuclear industry (reminder: the purchaser was the Russian nuclear industry); 2) Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder were among the people on the board whose decision it was to approve the deal; 3) Officials from the Russian nuclear industry gave the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars of donations at the time of the transaction, including a $500,000 speaking fee to Bill Clinton; 4) The DOJ (ie Holder) never notified the board responsible for approving the Uranium One deal of the ongoing criminal investigation into the Russian nuclear industry; 5) After the Uranium One deal was approved, the FBI seems to have buried the evidence that it collected on the matter, including prohibiting an FBI informant from speaking about what he learned; and 6) During the relevant time period, the FBI and the investigation into the Russian nuclear industry were run by a very familiar bunch of people: Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe -- basically all of the same people investigating Trump. This is just scratching the surface. But what distinguishes it from anything that might be remotely attributable to Trump is its scale and the sheer number of government officials that are implicated in it. So what is your theory on why this large number of government officials suppressed all this evidence of the Clintons receiving a quid pro quo? Kickbacks that we don't know about? Pure political favor? The real question is why wasn't the evidence from the investigation brought to the attention of the board. Once the deal was approved, the reason for suppressing the evidence is self-evident. It would be politically devastating for it to come out that the Obama administration green-lit the sale of 20% of America's uranium supply to a bunch of Russian crooks who were under investigation that led to prosecutions at the time of the sale. Holder sure as hell doesn't want that on his resume. Nor does Obama. Nor do the FBI and DOJ. With regards to the latter, just look at the lengths to which they are going to cover up their abusive FISA surveillance of Trump's campaign. As to that real question, I really don't know what the answer is. I think that there are three possibilities. The first is that Holder is simply incompetent. The second is that Holder (and potentially others) got suckered by the Clintons into keeping the evidence away from the board. The third is that the Clintons promised or gave Holder (and potentially others) something to keep the evidence away from the board.
We know for sure that Saudi Arabia is engaged in a perpetual scheme of bribes and kickbacks but we certainly continue to deal with them. Same thing with Russia, really. Those are very corrupt countries. The fact of there being corruption in the nuclear industry isn't necessarily evidence of a corrupt scheme on the part of the Obama cabal.
Your preference of certain investigations over others is just your political bias. Theres no meaningful distinction underlying your preference.
|
On December 07 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation. Am I getting that right? Show nested quote +Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns. www.washingtonpost.com
Just replace "regardless of the presidents political affiliation" with "so long as its trump."
|
On December 07 2018 04:02 Doodsmack wrote:That thing comes out swinging with what can only be called conspiracy theory speculation. Even Trey Gowdy said that based on the evidence he was permitted to see, the FBI was doing "what every American should want them to do" in initiating the investigation. The claim that there was a grand Obama cabal doing nothing more than surveilling trumps team is pretty stupid.
Trey Gowdy hasn't seen all of the underlying evidence regarding the FISA applications, but he has made it very clear that the FISA warrant would not have been granted without the dossier. So let's not pretend that he has come anywhere close to signing off on what the FBI/DOJ have done.
|
On December 07 2018 04:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation. Am I getting that right? Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns. www.washingtonpost.com Just replace "regardless of the presidents political affiliation" with "so long as its trump."
Sorta seems that way doesn't it?
I love how AOC just observing things (something any congressperson could have done) and speaking publicly on them is basically radically progressive lol.
|
I mean.... she was expecting anything different? Isn't the US one of the most anti-union nations in the developed world? Porbably shortly after the UK.
|
It's important to note that whoever or whatever prepares these "bipartisan" orientation appears to be, no bipartisan at all in terms of common political axis. Or perhaps she is commenting that that those same organisation or people appear to be united in that political axis?
|
On December 08 2018 01:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's important to note that whoever or whatever prepares these "bipartisan" orientation appears to be, no bipartisan at all in terms of common political axis. Or perhaps she is commenting that that those same organisation or people appear to be united in that political axis?
Well Democrat party leadership had to sign off on it so I'm pretty sure it's both.
|
On December 07 2018 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 04:11 Doodsmack wrote:On December 07 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation. Am I getting that right? Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns. www.washingtonpost.com Just replace "regardless of the presidents political affiliation" with "so long as its trump." Sorta seems that way doesn't it? I love how AOC just observing things (something any congressperson could have done) and speaking publicly on them is basically radically progressive lol. https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1070735202031423488
It’s hosted (co-hosted) by a Goldman Sachs lobbyist. I’m surprised she even attended. Gee whiz they invited a bunch of corporate CEOs to a lobbyist hosted event?
But whatever—going to it just to slam on it is another strategy.
|
On December 08 2018 02:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2018 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 04:11 Doodsmack wrote:On December 07 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation. Am I getting that right? Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns. www.washingtonpost.com Just replace "regardless of the presidents political affiliation" with "so long as its trump." Sorta seems that way doesn't it? I love how AOC just observing things (something any congressperson could have done) and speaking publicly on them is basically radically progressive lol. https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1070735202031423488 It’s hosted (co-hosted) by a Goldman Sachs lobbyist. I’m surprised she even attended. Gee whiz they invited a bunch of corporate CEOs to a lobbyist hosted event? But whatever—going to it just to slam on it is another strategy.
Pointing out that new Democrat congresspeople were there to be propagandized by CEO's and Dem leadership signs off on such things is important for Democrats who don't understand why Democrat leadership has abandoned US workers.
|
On December 08 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2018 02:00 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 04:11 Doodsmack wrote:On December 07 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation. Am I getting that right? Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns. www.washingtonpost.com Just replace "regardless of the presidents political affiliation" with "so long as its trump." Sorta seems that way doesn't it? I love how AOC just observing things (something any congressperson could have done) and speaking publicly on them is basically radically progressive lol. https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1070735202031423488 It’s hosted (co-hosted) by a Goldman Sachs lobbyist. I’m surprised she even attended. Gee whiz they invited a bunch of corporate CEOs to a lobbyist hosted event? But whatever—going to it just to slam on it is another strategy. Pointing out that new Democrat congresspeople were there to be propagandized by CEO's and Dem leadership signs off on such things is important for Democrats who don't understand why Democrat leadership has abandoned US workers.
Can the labour unions throw their own event and invite the senators to attend? If so, why have they not? And if not, why can they not?
|
On December 08 2018 04:33 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2018 02:00 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2018 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 07 2018 04:11 Doodsmack wrote:On December 07 2018 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If I'm understanding Republicans/Conservatives correctly they see this as the president shrewdly using our strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia to make a quick buck for himself but since it doesn't conflict with their view of national interests wouldn't be problematic regardless of the presidents political affiliation. Am I getting that right? Saudi-funded lobbyist paid for 500 rooms at Trump’s hotel after 2016 election
Lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved blocks of rooms at President Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of Trump’s election in 2016 — paying for an estimated 500 nights at the luxury hotel in just three months, according to organizers of the trips and documents obtained by The Washington Post.
At the time, these lobbyists were reserving large numbers of D.C.-area hotel rooms as part of an unorthodox campaign that offered U.S. military veterans a free trip to Washington — then sent them to Capitol Hill to lobby against a law the Saudis opposed, according to veterans and organizers.
At first, lobbyists for the Saudis put the veterans up in Northern Virginia. Then, in December 2016, they switched most of their business to the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. In all, the lobbyists spent more than $270,000 to house six groups of visiting veterans at the Trump hotel, which Trump still owns. www.washingtonpost.com Just replace "regardless of the presidents political affiliation" with "so long as its trump." Sorta seems that way doesn't it? I love how AOC just observing things (something any congressperson could have done) and speaking publicly on them is basically radically progressive lol. https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1070735202031423488 It’s hosted (co-hosted) by a Goldman Sachs lobbyist. I’m surprised she even attended. Gee whiz they invited a bunch of corporate CEOs to a lobbyist hosted event? But whatever—going to it just to slam on it is another strategy. Pointing out that new Democrat congresspeople were there to be propagandized by CEO's and Dem leadership signs off on such things is important for Democrats who don't understand why Democrat leadership has abandoned US workers. Can the labour unions throw their own event and invite the senators to attend? If so, why have they not? And if not, why can they not?
This isn't just some lobbyist event. It's a biennial even t that's gone on since the 70's that's supposed to be wide ranging bipartisan orientation on the issues.
Labor had a representative of sorts, a headliner really. It was just Elaine Chow whose name sounds vaguely familiar because she was former labor secretary and is married to Mitch McConnell.
Also important though is that so many congresspeople have gone through that same thing and had nothing but positive things to say about it.
|
I would like to hear the thoughts of a place such as this one (the other thread is much more European than this one, and as such, might have opinions too far removed to gain much from it) on the Peelian principles of policing, and if they are a good set of guidelines to aim for when pushing for change in the police force of the United States today. I believe that #6 and #7 specifically are things that the American police are systematically failing to adhere to.
+ Show Spoiler +
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by pandering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Sorry if I asked this before, my memory can be faulty art times.
|
On December 08 2018 05:51 Howie_Dewitt wrote:I would like to hear the thoughts of a place such as this one (the other thread is much more European than this one, and as such, might have opinions too far removed to gain much from it) on the Peelian principles of policing, and if they are a good set of guidelines to aim for when pushing for change in the police force of the United States today. I believe that #6 and #7 specifically are things that the American police are systematically failing to adhere to. + Show Spoiler +
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by pandering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Sorry if I asked this before, my memory can be faulty art times.
I have a few issues with them but them being used exactly for what people feared is one problem (police that is). People feared they'd be used to quell dissent and they most certainly are in the UK, US, and making international headlines in France for just that.
From the list what sticks out to me are 8 and 9.
9 Being the single most important and neglected one of all.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
lol Imagine thinking Cohen and Trump were part of serious crimes and Cohen is getting "significant jail time" when he's probably getting less time than he would get if they just found 6 grams of crystal meth in his car instead of whatever he's done.
He'll be out in 2 years at worst it looks like.
|
We are lucky to have people in the administration willing to disregard Trump's orders. The risk that Republican voters took was that we would not have this check on Trump's manifest incompetence and recklessness. The Framers sought to protect against charlatans and idiots taking the presidency, and though we failed to protect against the election of one, our democracy has proven resilient to his more extreme tendencies.
Tillerson, in an appearance at a charity event in Houston, said their relationship soured over Trump’s repeated demands that Tillerson do things that were illegal.
“So often, the president would say, ‘Here’s what I want you to do, and here’s how I want you to do it,’ ” Tillerson said at a fundraiser for the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, in his first public remarks about his truncated tenure since he was let go in March.
“And I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President, I understand what you want to do. But you can’t do it that way. It violates the law,’ ” he said.
...
“I’d say, ‘Here’s what we can do,’ ” Tillerson said. “ ‘We can go back to Congress and get this law changed. And if that’s what you want to do, there’s nothing wrong with that.’ I told him, ‘I’m ready to go up there and fight the fight, if that’s what you want to do.’ ”
www.msn.com
|
There's a sad comedy in Democrats spending Trump's first term proving he's a criminal just to admit there's nothing they can do about it.
|
Ocasio-Cortez is really starting to channel Trump on the national stage.
I have noticed that Junior here has a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up. Please, keep it coming Jr - it’s definitely a 'very, very large brain' idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month.
The thought of "you'll regret trolling me with memes once I get subpoena power" is cribbed from Trump's normal "Oh you did this media? How about challenging your license!" and blather. She's upping her game and shows two elected politicians can say crazy shit on twitter and it's no big deal. First term of Trump opposition, versus second term of Trump opposition.
And say what you want about AOC and the younger lot: they're a whole lot better than Pelosi Corp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
