The Many Faces of US Politics...

Started by Tyrones own, March 20, 2009, 09:29:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J70

Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 05:58:32 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 05:47:08 PM

So you're ok with a country's leader potentially placing the needs of his personal fortune and finances above what is best for the country?

You have trust in the GOP-controlled congress as watchdogs?

There's a reason why past presidents have placed their business interests into blind trusts. Trumps refuses to do this and to cut any ties, beyond turning the management over to his kids (reconfirmed mere minutes ago).

This all from a man who was campaigned on corruption and "draining the swamp" (yes, I know it was cynicism on his part).

I'm not happy or sad about it. I don't assume he will do that. I respect the outcome of the vote and the political institutions in the USA. I understand the possibility there is for corruption. There is nothing new here. Every leader of ever Country has the potential to put the needs of their personal wealth first.
There is nothing new in friends and family of Presidents having private interests. There is nothing new in Presidents working after they retire from the White House. And there's certainly nothing new in someone campaigning on one thing and doing another.

What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

vallankumous

#7096
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.
Maybe I am deluded, I don't know how to counter that.

J70

Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean it's not a concern. And what standard is he being held to that his predecessors have not?

And I'm not arguing against the GOP controlling congress and the White House. I'm saying that Trump is refusing to take the normal measures that presidents do to avoid ethical problems and conflicts of interest, and that because of the GOP control, the checks and balances to counter or examine any issues may not exist. Which makes what he is doing even more of a concern.

The birth certificate was a baseless, paranoid, conspiracy theory. This issue is merely asking that Trump do what his predecessors did and leave his personal financial and business considerations outside the door when he has to make decisions on behalf of his constituents.

J70

I do see, however, where someone might dismiss this due to cynicism about money and influence in the entire American political process, especially in the aftermath of Citizens United. Basically, if they're going to line the pockets or look after the interests of donors, then why does themselves and their family matter?

Eamonnca1

Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Sweet Jesus.

whitey

Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:57:52 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean it's not a concern. And what standard is he being held to that his predecessors have not?

And I'm not arguing against the GOP controlling congress and the White House. I'm saying that Trump is refusing to take the normal measures that presidents do to avoid ethical problems and conflicts of interest, and that because of the GOP control, the checks and balances to counter or examine any issues may not exist. Which makes what he is doing even more of a concern.

The birth certificate was a baseless, paranoid, conspiracy theory. This issue is merely asking that Trump do what his predecessors did and leave his personal financial and business considerations outside the door when he has to make decisions on behalf of his constituents.

I love the new found fascination with ethics and conflicts of interests........where was that same concern when the Clintons were lining their pockets?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/


Band wrote. "I could add 500 different examples of things like this."

omaghjoe

Quote from: whitey on January 11, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:57:52 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean it's not a concern. And what standard is he being held to that his predecessors have not?

And I'm not arguing against the GOP controlling congress and the White House. I'm saying that Trump is refusing to take the normal measures that presidents do to avoid ethical problems and conflicts of interest, and that because of the GOP control, the checks and balances to counter or examine any issues may not exist. Which makes what he is doing even more of a concern.

The birth certificate was a baseless, paranoid, conspiracy theory. This issue is merely asking that Trump do what his predecessors did and leave his personal financial and business considerations outside the door when he has to make decisions on behalf of his constituents.

I love the new found fascination with ethics and conflicts of interests........where was that same concern when the Clintons were lining their pockets?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/


Band wrote. "I could add 500 different examples of things like this."

Hillary Clinton will be going back to her speeches and trying to recover her server, what is that to do with Trump?

Gmac

whoever owns buzzfeed the website that published the story about trump and hookers better have some deep pockets or excellent attorneys when the Donald comes after them , btw ithe website was started by former huffington post people and has huge investments from NBC its no wonder no one believes a word that CNN , NBC  say or publish .

gallsman

Yeah, they'll be terrified of yet another Trump lawsuit. He never fucks up about how he loves to sue people. Conveniently never bothered to tell you if he won the suits or not.

J70

Quote from: whitey on January 11, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:57:52 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean it's not a concern. And what standard is he being held to that his predecessors have not?

And I'm not arguing against the GOP controlling congress and the White House. I'm saying that Trump is refusing to take the normal measures that presidents do to avoid ethical problems and conflicts of interest, and that because of the GOP control, the checks and balances to counter or examine any issues may not exist. Which makes what he is doing even more of a concern.

The birth certificate was a baseless, paranoid, conspiracy theory. This issue is merely asking that Trump do what his predecessors did and leave his personal financial and business considerations outside the door when he has to make decisions on behalf of his constituents.

I love the new found fascination with ethics and conflicts of interests........where was that same concern when the Clintons were lining their pockets?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/


Band wrote. "I could add 500 different examples of things like this."

As I recall, you were one of the people making a big clamour over the Clintons.

So why are you not expressing concern over Trump, especially given that the risks are being flagged, and brazenly dismissed, before he's even taken office?

And do you not think Trump's circle are getting ready to cash in, just like the Clintons allegedly did, as we speak? Are the likes of Lewandowski setting up blocks from the White House for the good of their health?

sid waddell

Trump saying the media are like something out of Nazi Germany - and by association automatically calling John McCain, the FBI and the CIA "Nazis" - lolzers.  ;D

The far right really need to stop calling their opponents "Nazis" and "fascists".

Constantly throwing out the same old tired "Nazi" and "fascist" insults means they lose all meaning and people just consider you an idiot.


Gmac

Quote from: sid waddell on January 12, 2017, 12:08:37 AM
Trump saying the media are like something out of Nazi Germany - and by association automatically calling John McCain, the FBI and the CIA "Nazis" - lolzers.  ;D

The far right really need to stop calling their opponents "Nazis" and "fascists".

Constantly throwing out the same old tired "Nazi" and "fascist" insults means they lose all meaning and people just consider you an idiot.
i thought the liberals were calling trump and supporters nazis and a fascists?

whitey

Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 11:46:01 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 11, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:57:52 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean it's not a concern. And what standard is he being held to that his predecessors have not?

And I'm not arguing against the GOP controlling congress and the White House. I'm saying that Trump is refusing to take the normal measures that presidents do to avoid ethical problems and conflicts of interest, and that because of the GOP control, the checks and balances to counter or examine any issues may not exist. Which makes what he is doing even more of a concern.

The birth certificate was a baseless, paranoid, conspiracy theory. This issue is merely asking that Trump do what his predecessors did and leave his personal financial and business considerations outside the door when he has to make decisions on behalf of his constituents.

I love the new found fascination with ethics and conflicts of interests........where was that same concern when the Clintons were lining their pockets?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/


Band wrote. "I could add 500 different examples of things like this."

As I recall, you were one of the people making a big clamour over the Clintons.

So why are you not expressing concern over Trump, especially given that the risks are being flagged, and brazenly dismissed, before he's even taken office?

And do you not think Trump's circle are getting ready to cash in, just like the Clintons allegedly did, as we speak? Are the likes of Lewandowski setting up blocks from the White House for the good of their health?

Oh I think it's disgraceful. I'm confounded by your newly found outrage......you didn't see to give a $hit when it was the Clintons

sid waddell

#7108
Quote from: Gmac on January 12, 2017, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 12, 2017, 12:08:37 AM
Trump saying the media are like something out of Nazi Germany - and by association automatically calling John McCain, the FBI and the CIA "Nazis" - lolzers.  ;D

The far right really need to stop calling their opponents "Nazis" and "fascists".

Constantly throwing out the same old tired "Nazi" and "fascist" insults means they lose all meaning and people just consider you an idiot.
i thought the liberals were calling trump and supporters nazis and a fascists?
Trump and Trump supporters rightly get called Nazis and fascists because they exhibit clear and consistent patterns of behaviour and rhetoric consistent with those ideologies, such as threatening to deport 11 million people in the biggest forced mass mobilisation of "others" since the Holocaust, banning immigration of people of a certain religion, threatening to lock up political opponents, making thinly veiled assassination threats on political opponents, widespread hate crimes after the election, vilifying disabled people, vilifying others for "taking their jobs", vilifying everybody who doesn't agree with them, really. Oh, and having an actual neo-Nazi rally in Washington in celebration of Trump's election.

What's right-wingers' excuse for calling others "Nazis" and "fascists", given that those they seek to vilify qualify for such labelling under precisely no criteria?

Laziness or just terminal stupidity?


J70

#7109
Quote from: whitey on January 12, 2017, 12:43:14 AM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 11:46:01 PM
Quote from: whitey on January 11, 2017, 08:42:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:57:52 PM
Quote from: vallankumous on January 11, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on January 11, 2017, 06:25:28 PM


What is new is the refusal of the president to put his direct personal financial interests off the table. What is fairly new is the deep and bitter partisanship in DC and the country in general. Sure, lone GOP voices like McCain or Graham might raise concerns about something Trump is doing, but if you think Trump is going to be subject to even a small fraction of the oversight that the GOP gave to, say, Hillary Clinton, you're deluded.

Meh, that's the new birth certificate scandal as far as I care.

Oversight? It's a fecking democracy. That's how it works. Same as was here. We have a massive FG LB Gov and they also controlled the councils and the senate. FG had also the support of the richest man in Ireland. I hated that but I put up with it as that's how it was. We had our choice and we made it.

I've no time for Donald Trump, same as the next man. But I do think he is held to a different standard by the international community.

Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean it's not a concern. And what standard is he being held to that his predecessors have not?

And I'm not arguing against the GOP controlling congress and the White House. I'm saying that Trump is refusing to take the normal measures that presidents do to avoid ethical problems and conflicts of interest, and that because of the GOP control, the checks and balances to counter or examine any issues may not exist. Which makes what he is doing even more of a concern.

The birth certificate was a baseless, paranoid, conspiracy theory. This issue is merely asking that Trump do what his predecessors did and leave his personal financial and business considerations outside the door when he has to make decisions on behalf of his constituents.

I love the new found fascination with ethics and conflicts of interests........where was that same concern when the Clintons were lining their pockets?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/


Band wrote. "I could add 500 different examples of things like this."

As I recall, you were one of the people making a big clamour over the Clintons.

So why are you not expressing concern over Trump, especially given that the risks are being flagged, and brazenly dismissed, before he's even taken office?

And do you not think Trump's circle are getting ready to cash in, just like the Clintons allegedly did, as we speak? Are the likes of Lewandowski setting up blocks from the White House for the good of their health?

Oh I think it's disgraceful. I'm confounded by your newly found outrage......you didn't see to give a $hit when it was the Clintons

That's not true.

You were arguing against Clinton on the basis of corruption. I was pointing out that Trump had a very checkered history, with admissions, even boasts, of buying off of politicians, and was likely to be just as corrupt.

I've also said many times that my choice of vote was not based on ethics, as I generally assume the worst with politicians, but on policy.

Nevertheless, I don't ever recall a man yet to take power, like Trump, with so many red flags with respect to corruption and conflict of interest. 

And please quit with the "outrage" horseshit - Trump is the one who ran on a campaign of anti-corruption and "draining the swamp". Its hardly overreacting or expressing outrage to point out the bleeding obvious in a discussion of US politics.