192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 02:49 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
... those countries... which aren't governed by the universal US-law.


Yeah, well, that particular (poorly articulated, but I think I seek what he's trying to get at) question leads to theoretical/philosophical issues about what "law" is, and where "rights" come from, I guess.

Walt seems to presuppose that "rights" can only come from the government.

You and I would agree that a government attempt to deprive you of inalienable human rights does NOT serve to "cancel" such rights, and make them non-existent.

The rights still exist, and even people in dictatorial regimes understand and "acknowledge" this. It's not that they don't have such rights, it's just that their rights are being violated, and they intuitively understand that.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 02:49 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

First, you obviously are discussing former US politicians; so you would have to show that you could find two honest people within that group.

And then, if you did, the answer would of course be NO, it is not possible because US politicians are hired to keep the propaganda flow going, not tell the truth.
Interesting. Why do you suppose people payed that money into their personal fortunes?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 02:54 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Does anyone here believe that two honest people could make $100 million in 15 years just by giving speeches?
First, who has made that claim? They obviously have investment portfolios, they have both written books, likely Bill has done consulting work, etc.

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck make about that much money in four years. Sarah Palin made 12 million in the first year or two after walking away from the governorship.

Did they claim to have made this money from book sales? And those must have been some fantastic investments. Hillary described them as being in financial straits when Bill left office. Weren't they, in fact, repeatedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, many by foreign groups?
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 03:00 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
An anonymous characterization of a sentence isn't evidence. If this really happened, why, after all this investigation, are there no hard facts, no witnesses willing to testify?
Of course it is "evidence", it is just not nearly adequate to establish the truth of things. Much other evidence will be required to resolve what happened.

In any case, at this point it is a bit silly to argue about this. Investigations by the relevant justice/intel/congressional bodies are underway along with the work reporters are doing (as happened with the Watergate fiasco which took about two years in total). Perhaps you are or want to argue that the press shouldn't be covering these matters but it is often the case that such reporting is absolutely necessary to force matters into the open and to force deeper levels of investigation from authorities (again, as with Watergate).

In the case of Watergate, you had people caught burglarizing and planting listening devices in the Democratic party headquarters. Then one of the convicted burglars, James McCord, wrote a letter to the judge stating that government officials were involved. In the case of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, even after months of investigation, you have "some guy who won't be identified claims."
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 03:02 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Weren't they, in fact, repeatedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, many by foreign groups?


No, not really. They weren't being paid for lame-ass speeches. They were paid to purchase the "influence" they were selling.

Sometimes that was "political influence" derived from holding government office.

Sometimes it was paid to "purchase" the distribution of some of the vast sums of cash the Clintons controlled via their "Clinton Foundation."

As their own manager said, it was a "business." Clinton, Inc.
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 04:52 am
Quote:
Clinton Cash

In the new documentary “Clinton Cash,” it becomes all too clear how the former first couple went from rags to filthy rich — with the emphasis on filthy.

The documentary is based on a book by former Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer and was just screened during the Cannes Film Festival. It is set to be shown in major US cities, including Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention there in July.

Schweizer’s research has withstood a year of intense scrutiny from critics because it is fact, not fiction. And the facts are compelling

She and her ex-president husband sold out to titans, dictators and shady characters in Nigeria, Congo, Kazakhstan and the United Arab Emirates, not to mention at Goldman Sachs and TD Bank....

Here’s another example of the pair’s lucrative shenanigans. TD Bank never engaged Bill Clinton to speak during his first eight years out of the White House. But in 2009, four days after Hillary was nominated as secretary of state, Bill made the first of a string of speeches for which TD paid almost $2 million. An astounding amount.

And guess what? TD Bank was the single largest shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, which required State Department approval. Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton decided to support the pipeline — a heresy to environmentalists — and delayed the Obama administration’s rejection of it.

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research


http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/first-look-at-explosive-hillary-documentary-clinton-cash/



0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Sat 27 May, 2017 05:21 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Does anyone here believe that two honest people could make $100 million in 15 years just by giving speeches?

What's your point?

Here we have two of the country's most scrutinized individuals, suspected by many of cashing in on their notoriety and influence and yet they haven't been formally accused of any crime, let alone indicted. Maybe they are being protected by some unseen network of supporters within the law enforcement community? Sounds a bit far-fetched. But what if they haven't actually committed any crimes but have benefited by a system which, if not technically corrupt, just happens to stink to high hell? How do you act "honestly" in a situation like that? What does "honesty" even mean in the higher echelons of the corporate/political establishment? Going after highly visible small fry like the Clintons may thrill vengeful conservatives but it will do little to halt the type of questionable behavior they opportunistically decry. You'd need legislation to enforce new, clear, strict ethics rules for former officeholders — and current officeholders are unlikely to do this because they believe they're entitled to some of that gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. "Hell, why do you think I ran for office in the first place?"
layman
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 05:41 am
@hightor,
Quote:
...they haven't been formally accused of any crime, let alone indicted. Maybe they are being protected by some unseen network of supporters within the law enforcement community? Sounds a bit far-fetched.


Unseen? Loretta Lynch, Obama, Holder, Comey, et al are pretty highly visible, doncha think?

Far-fetched? It might (and should) sound that way, sure. We wouldn't "expect" our highest law enforcement officials to be corrupt in that way. Well, maybe not 30 years ago, anyway. Now, given all the facts that have emerged, it's not a matter of what we "expect," it's a matter of what we see.
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 06:42 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I haven't read or seen anyone applauding [Gianforte's] behavior, and certainly not Trump.
You missed a lot including from Limbaugh and Ingraham. Two main thrusts: reporters deserve such treatment, and Gianforte is a real manly man while the reporter is a wimpy snowflake.

Quote:
It's as if government employees in every department and area have all joined in on a fad [leaking]
Everyone in the press acknowledges that the level of leaking is unprecedented. That's not necessarily bad, of course. In the presence of corruption, criminality, serious and consequential incompetence, serial disregard for honesty, etc and where there is a supine Congress facilitating all this then whistle-blowing becomes a civic duty. But what you are missing in your sentence is an appreciation that something like half of these embarrassing leaks are coming not from "government employees", they are coming from WH staff.

All that said, there's an acknowledgement by many of the people I read that the level of leaking from government agencies (even if for valid reasons) sets a dangerous precedent.
camlok
 
  0  
Sat 27 May, 2017 06:43 am
@layman,
Quote:
We wouldn't "expect" our highest law enforcement officials to be corrupt in that way. Well, maybe not 30 years ago, anyway.


They were corrupt well over 250 years ago, layman. They have been corrupt ever since, not to mention purveyors of genocide, war criminals, terrorists, ... .
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 06:48 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Donald Trump's son-in-law attempted to set up secret communications with Moscow a month after Mr Trump's election, US media say.

Jared Kushner wanted to use Russian facilities to avoid US interception of discussions with Moscow, the Washington Post and New York Times said.
I haven't got to that story yet this morning but so long as he doesn't have a private email server, what the hell.
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 27 May, 2017 06:59 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Did they claim to have made this money from book sales?
You initially asked how they could make that much money from speeches. I asked you who had made the claim that this was their sole income source. You aren't answering that question.
Quote:
And those must have been some fantastic investments. Hillary described them as being in financial straits when Bill left office. Weren't they, in fact, repeatedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, many by foreign groups?
Yes, they are paid ridiculous sums for speeches as are hundreds of others who give speeches (mainly to corporate groups who have the deep pockets). The Clintons are not unusual in this regard though at the top end of the pay scale.

Look, you can find out where the Clinton's income comes from with a simple google search. Just avoid the bad sources. Forbes, for example, has a graph HERE
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:01 am
Quote:


WikiLeaks List Exposes At Least 65 Corporate ‘PresstitutesWho Colluded to Hide Clinton’s Crimes

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wikileaks-list-corporate-media-colluded-clinton/#DxfoZWuzDWKAle4t.99
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:04 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Montana's a solid Republican state and 40% of the ballots had already been cast. The assault would have had a limited effect and massive infusions of outside money bankrolling one candidate often inspire voters to choose the opponent. Quist's loss was disappointing but not all that surprising. In any case Gianforte exhibited the sort of behavior that confirms the low expectations of anti-rightists everywhere — a wealthy man, a pro-family conservative, a young earth creationist who just happens to be a thug. Of course people will vote for him...the Trumpenproletariat loves that sort of guy.


Once again, the left fails to understand why they keep on losing.

Your reasoning is specious at best and rediculous at worst. It's not so much that we love Trump, it's that we can not abide what the left stands for...or better yet, because they really don't stand for anything anymore, other than to oppose for the sake of opposition.

Left with the choice, we will vote for the person who may be flawed but will back our ideals. And when they don't, we'll dump them.

Even if 40% of the votes weren't cast the reason he still would have won after assaulting the press is because in most people's minds, generally speaking, the press deserves it.

All kidding aside, I'm am not for assaulting anyone unless its in self defense. But its not just because the press is biased regarding conservative or populist ideals, we can't abide them, because of their shrill, dismissive​ and unfair advantage they take in an obvious attempt to highjack elections.

They pretend to be concerned about Russian influence on the election but in truth it is the press that seeks to steamroll their personal ideals to the exclusion of all others. People on the left poo-poo Fox News when the say "Fair and Balanced". But the facts bear out the statement.

Just like that brilliant thinker Layman said, A2K is a microcosm.
There is no discourse without animus here, just the shrill left trying to wipe out all evidence if conservative or populist thought.

The unreasonableness of the position of most here, in that, Trump, the duly elected President of the United States, can do no right and must be destroyed and removed from office at all costs is emblematic of the larger problem on the left and the reason they will continue to lose elections.
snood
 
  3  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:06 am
@blatham,
Quote:
I haven't got to that story yet this morning but so long as he doesn't have a private email server, what the hell.


Amazing, isn't it? "Hypocrite" isn't quite a strong enough word to describe the Republicans who led the hyperventilated lynch mob over the horrible, terrible, very bad email server.
Here we have Trump's closest advisor apparently attempting to set up a secret server in a Russian Embassy right after Russia was proven to tamper in our elections in favor of Trump, and no discernible outrage from the same "patriots".
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:07 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
In the case of Watergate
As I noted earlier, the Watergate story was some two years in duration before Nixon was forced to resign through the initial investigations by (mainly) the Washington Post, the slow and tedious accumulation of information and finally through even GOP politicos recognizing that, yeah, this is big and it is very ugly, then moving through investigations and towards impeachment.
snood
 
  5  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:09 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Look, you can find out where the Clinton's income comes from with a simple google search.


But, that would take away from all the fun insinuation of wrong-doing! Party pooper.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:09 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

How stupid does someone have to be to completely gloss over the ever-unfolding, ocean-sized cesspool of Trump conflicts of interest, corruption and greed and rather than give any attention at all to that, just keep up a constant blathering spew of imaginary Clinton/Obama offenses? How deranged, how deluded, and just how ******* stupid?
Don't worry about it. I feel much better just having asked the rhetorical.


The problem is you never asked it about the Clintons did you?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:12 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

It's like a bad dream and you can't wake up. Apparently his supporters are sheep.


Said the green koolaid drinker...bottoms up!
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Sat 27 May, 2017 07:13 am
Quote:
Two men have been killed as they tried to stop a man abusing two women who appeared to be Muslim, police in the US city of Portland say.
The abusive man turned on the two men and fatally stabbed them, police said.
The incident happened on a commuter train. Another passenger was wounded before the attacker was arrested.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations urged President Trump to speak out against increasing Islamophobia in the US.
It accused the president of exacerbating the trend with his statements and policies.
The attack took place at about 16:30 local time (00:30 GMT) on a train at Hollywood Transit Station, police said in a statement. One of the victims died at the scene, the other died in hospital.
Police have identified the suspect as Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35. He has been charged with offences including aggravated murder, attempted murder, intimidation and being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon.
"Suspect was on the train and he was yelling and ranting and raving a lot of different things, including what would be characterised as hate speech or biased language," said Sgt Pete Simpson.
"In the midst of his ranting and raving, some people approached him, appeared to try to intervene with his behaviour. Some of the people that he was yelling at, they were attacked viciously by the suspect, resulting in the two deaths and one injury."

Jeremy Joseph Christian was arrested shortly after he got off the train. The two women he was abusing - one of whom was said by eyewitnesses to have been wearing a headscarf - left the scene before police could speak to them.
However one of the girls' parents later told the Oregonian newspaper that they were teenagers, one black and one Muslim.
Dyjuana Hudson said the attacker "was saying that Muslims should die. That they've been killing Christians for years".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40070319
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 11:35:18