It's unfortunate that people mistake my cynicism for misogyny. People have to be careful to not trivialize these words - a real problem with the Trump-ophobes in general, actually.
I'm picturing all of the sensitive souls in this thread, flushed in the face, fainting behind their keyboards for having been forced to read my comment. "Dear, fix me some tea...I've just been offended on the internet."
Being a louder and bigger dickhead doesn't magically make you some voice of reason.
Watching the clown on the other side should give a pretty clear lesson on that.
It's unfortunate that people mistake my cynicism for misogyny. People have to be careful to not trivialize these words - a real problem with the Trump-ophobes in general, actually.
I'm picturing all of the sensitive souls in this thread, flushed in the face, fainting behind their keyboards for having been forced to read my comment. "Dear, fix me some tea...I've just been offended on the internet."
yeah I'm not really offended, if that's what you're thinking. I'm just trying to connect the dots in your horrific logic haha
honestly I find it kind of hilarious and a bit weird, your take on all of this. This debate overall kind of sucks actually, and I was mostly just musing.
There, does that make you feel better Don Cherry?
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Unfortunately buster's posts keep coming up through quotes.
My last point on his stance.
He contends that being outraged by hyperbole (ie, Mexicans aren't a race, therefore his comments aren't racist) diminishes the power of the accusation. This makes him feel smarter than the average Joe because he can rise above the confused masses and clearly see what we can't.
What he's sorely missing, is that we're not stupid. We know Mexicans aren't a race. When I charge someone with the term "racist", I can use more than reading comprehension and perhaps a little of context, nuance and understanding of culture and history. When Trump says "Mexicans" he knows it'll get a response from people. A certain type of people. I don't need him to state "white people are better than other people" because I'm not an idiot and I can see what is happening.
With his position, you cannot label almost anyone racist. While it's great that he preserved some "power" to the charge, he lets racist speech go unchallenged because it's not explicit enough.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
A person doesn't get to decide if they are or are not misogynist, racist, or sexist, any more than a person gets to decide if they are or are not a jerk.
Everyone else gets to decide, based on the person's words and actions.
Trump doesn't get to say "I'm not a racist" any more than the guy who cut you off and flipped you the bird gets to say "I'm not a jerk."
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Ivanka is a lifelong Democrat so she might one day be their nominee, but she'll never be the Republican nominee. Most of the ideas Donald has taken from her are Democratic ideas (like child care), and since she's shown no inclination towards the nationalism angle unlike her brothers, she has no leg to stand on to win the nomination. Remember Trump is a Democrat running as Republican, he's just a nationalist too which is what they love about him. Maybe Donnie Jr can run for the Repub nomination some day. But really the Trumps have to worry about the onslaught of media attention and investigations that will come after the election. The media right now is in awe of what David Farenthold did, mostly because they suck at their job and needed a reminder what being a journalist is about, so I think they're going Trump hunting after the election. Trump family will only look worse by the time the next election rolls around.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 09-14-2016 at 05:37 AM.
This is interesting. I don't know if it means anything or not...but it certainly looks bad from a public perspective, as I think most voters would assume a 5th plea is the same as being guilty.
That session is a joke. Chaffetz continues to show he's a fool who doesn't understand the subject matter he's investigating. The answers to his questions would be admitting the company was responsible for wrong doing and possibly breaking federal law. At best they destroy their reputation as IT service providers. At worst they admit to knowingly not protecting a system housing federal data, which they are compelled to do as a service provider, regardless of the client's wishes. Of course these witnesses are going to use their 5th amendment privilege to head off any possible self-incrimination. It seems everyone on the panel knew this. So Chaffetz was doing this all for show and Cummings acknowledges as much when he says he will not participate in the process of publicly berating of witnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
No, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable, if a bit...crass...in its wording.
And words matter. The video I just referenced is proof of that. Use the correct terms and you won't get called out and have to go off on another tangential argument of the definition and your chose use of a word.
I love the notion that "Trump isn't racist, he is just Corporatism Ethnic Social Nationalist". Like that is supposed to be better.
Race is such a subjective term and the definition of race has changed over the centuries. It's not even a recognized way of categorizing humans by most modern biologists anymore. Saying Mexicans aren't a race is not a valid argument for someone not being a racist if you don't know where that person's definition of race begins and ends. Was Hitler not a racist because "Aryans are not a race"?
Freedictionary.com's #2 and #3 definitions are:
Quote:
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
And the term "racism" is commonly accepted to encompass those definitions.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-14-2016 at 07:00 AM.
This should be a massive test of the media (who will likely spend 5 times more coverage on Dr. Oz), and if we don't get debate questions about this it'll be a disgrace.
Quote:
A close examination by Newsweek of the Trump Organization, including confidential interviews with business executives and some of its international partners, reveals an enterprise with deep ties to global financiers, foreign politicians and even criminals, although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities. It also reveals a web of contractual entanglements that could not be just canceled. If Trump moves into the White House and his family continues to receive any benefit from the company, during or even after his presidency, almost every foreign policy decision he makes will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.
Quote:
The idea of selling the Trump brand name to overseas developers emerged as a small piece of the company’s business in the late 1990s. At that time, two executives from Daewoo Engineering and Construction met with Trump at his Manhattan offices to propose paying him for the right to use his name on a new complex under development, according to former executives from the South Korean company. Daewoo had already worked with the Trump Organization to build the Trump World Tower, which is close to the Manhattan headquarters of the United Nations. The former Daewoo executives said Trump was at first skeptical, but in 1999 construction began on the South Korean version of Trump World, six condominium properties in Seoul and two neighboring cities. According to the two former executives, the Trump Organization received an annual fee of approximately $8 million a year.
Shortly after the deal was signed, the parent company of Daewoo Engineering and Construction, the Daewoo Group, collapsed into bankruptcy amid allegations of what proved to be a $43 billion accounting fraud. The chairman of the Daewoo Group, Kim Woo Choong, fled to North Korea; he returned in 2005, was arrested and convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to 10 years in prison. According to the two former Daewoo executives, a reorganization of Daewoo after its bankruptcy required revisions in the Trump contract, but the Trump Organization still remains allied with Daewoo Engineering and Construction.
This relationship puts Trump’s foreign policies in conflict with his financial interests. Earlier this year, he said South Korea should plan to shoulder its own military defense rather than relying on the United States, including the development of nuclear weapons. (He later denied making that statement, which was video-recorded.) One of the primary South Korean companies involved in nuclear energy, a key component in weapons development, is Trump’s partner—Daewoo Engineering and Construction. It would potentially get an economic windfall if the United States adopted policies advocated by Trump.
Quote:
Some of the most disturbing international dealings by the Trump Organization involved Trump’s attempts to woo Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi. The United States had labeled Qaddafi as a sponsor of terrorism for decades; President Ronald Reagan even launched a military attack on him in 1986 after the National Security Agency intercepted a communications that showed Qaddafi was behind the bombing of a German discotheque that killed two Americans. He was also linked to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 people, in 1988.
But for the Trump Organization, Qaddafi was not a murdering terrorist; he was a prospect who might bring the company financing and the opportunity to build a resort on the Mediterranean coast of Libya. According to an Arab financier and a former businessman from the North African country, Trump made entreaties to Qaddafi and other members of his government, beginning in 2008, in which he sought deals that would bring cash to the Trump Organization from a sovereign wealth fund called the Libyan Investment Authority. The following year, Trump offered to lease his estate in Westchester County, New York, to Qaddafi; he took Qaddafi’s money but, after local protests, forbade him from staying at his property. (Trump kept the cash.) “I made a lot of money with Qaddafi,’’ Trump said recently about the Westchester escapade. “He paid me a fortune.”
Another business relationship that could raise concerns about conflicts involves Azerbaijan, a country the State Department said in an official report was infused with “corruption and predatory behavior by politically connected elites.” According to Trump’s financial filings, the Republican nominee is the president of two entities called OT Marks Baku LLC and DT Marks Baku Manaaina Member Corp. Those were established as part of deals the Trump Organization made last year for a real estate project in the country’s capital. The partner in the deal is Garant Holding, which is controlled by Anar Mammadov, the son of the country’s transportation minister, Ziya Mammadov. According to American diplomatic cables made public in 2010, the United States possessed information that led diplomats to believe Ziya Mammadov laundered money for the Iranian military. No formal charges have been brought against either Mammadov
DNC leaks revealing a huge amount of new information. People have started combing through the leaked documents are starting to find very interesting things.
Basically ambassadorships are awarded based almost entirely on dollars you can bring into the DNC either through personal donation or fundraising. The spreadsheet of the amount of money brought in to the position is very telling. Cost to become ambassador of Canada: $700k
DNC also apparently has a large stock portfolio. Doesn't this create a conflict of interest situation? http://pastebin.com/9nig3CsV
That session is a joke. Chaffetz continues to show he's a fool who doesn't understand the subject matter he's investigating. The answers to his questions would be admitting the company was responsible for wrong doing and possibly breaking federal law. At best they destroy their reputation as IT service providers. At worst they admit to knowingly not protecting a system housing federal data, which they are compelled to do as a service provider, regardless of the client's wishes. Of course these witnesses are going to use their 5th amendment privilege to head off any possible self-incrimination. It seems everyone on the panel knew this. So Chaffetz was doing this all for show and Cummings acknowledges as much when he says he will not participate in the process of publicly berating of witnesses.
And words matter. The video I just referenced is proof of that. Use the correct terms and you won't get called out and have to go off on another tangential argument of the definition and your chose use of a word.
The content of the video doesn't really matter. All that matter is how it impacts voters. And it looks bad.
Words matter? Indeed. I'm awaiting your PhD thesis on the subject.
The fundraising one looks really bad however do they get the position for having fundraiser well or are they expected to fundraiser well because they have the posisition
There was a recent John Oliver where they talked about Senate and House fund raising and how each congressmen is tracked and expected to raise X amount of dollars for the DNC or RNC and the higher your position the more your expected to raise. It's a terrible system and needs to be changed and this should help to bring light on what's going on.
I don't think this alone shows the selling of ambassadorships.
The insider trading stuff looks really bad, hopefully this leads to reform in the US system.
I don't think it's insider trading though, just a conflict of interest. At the same time almost all congresspeople have retirement plans and I'm guessing many have stock portfolios, and those obviously present conflicts of interest as well. Press for answers on that front, but insider trading seems hard to prove without a source.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
It's almost the definition of insider trading - with the exception that they legislated themselves immunity.
So the Dems are basically a large hedge fun, with access to material non-public information on securities, and they trade using this information.
Representatives and Senators do this all of the time. It's disgusting, but it happens. The fact that this information then goes on to benefit the party is interesting, as I don't know if the party should share the same immunity.
Sounds like the DNC needs to contact the RNC and get some of their technology. Apparently theirs is impenetrable whilst the Dems have a captcha drawing of a weiner in a donut as a firewall. Curious.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Actually it's not even close to the definition of insider trading, but thanks for playing. Nothing proves they had insider knowledge, they simply hold stock. The RNC has stock too without question, doesn't mean they are doing insider trading.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I don't think it's insider trading though, just a conflict of interest. At the same time almost all congresspeople have retirement plans and I'm guessing many have stock portfolios, and those obviously present conflicts of interest as well. Press for answers on that front, but insider trading seems hard to prove without a source.
Receiving information that triggers a trade before a public press release is by definition insider trading. The source is the DNC's own servers showing the timing of the trades and public press releases from thosecompanies which, given the amount they are blaming the Russians, is more than likely correct.
Individuals are allowed to own stock but a governing party doing so opens up too much opportunity for conflict of interest that should not be allowed. https://i.sli.mg/NTDytN.png
Last edited by FlameOn; 09-14-2016 at 08:38 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
yeah I'm not really offended, if that's what you're thinking. I'm just trying to connect the dots in your horrific logic haha
