OT: Trump/Russians/Robert Mueller

GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842840640 said:

They need to get Melania and Ivanka more involved. They're hot. A liberal's ultimate grudge f$ck, whether the liberal is a man or woman.


She's President in the sequel
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842840640 said:

They need to get Melania and Ivanka more involved. They're hot. A liberal's ultimate grudge f$ck, whether the liberal is a man or woman.


What is bizarre is the left's hate of Ivanka when she is the ideological opposite of her dad.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842840668 said:

What is bizarre is the left's hate of Ivanka when she is the ideological opposite of her dad.

Who said anything about hate? I said she's hot.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842840670 said:

Who said anything about hate? I said she's hot.


Well, that is undeniable.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842840668 said:

What is bizarre is the left's hate of Ivanka when she is the ideological opposite of her dad.


I don't think the left hates Ivanka, other than perhaps by association.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842840668 said:

What is bizarre is the left's hate of Ivanka when she is the ideological opposite of her dad.


More bizarre statements. She is not the opposite of her dad, because her dad stands for nothing. You can't be the opposite of nothing. Further, the left, in fact, was over-infatuated with her, hoping she was the Great Left Hope to reel in her dad. She was not. She is difficult to read - she has said in her book, though, that (more or less) you should not let anyone know how you really feel and that way you can be everything to everyone.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
grandmastapoop;842840675 said:

More bizarre statements. She is not the opposite of her dad, because her dad stands for nothing. You can't be the opposite of nothing. Further, the left, in fact, was over-infatuated with her, hoping she was the Great Left Hope to reel in her dad. She was not. She is difficult to read - she has said in her book, though, that (more or less) you should not let anyone know how you really feel and that way you can be everything to everyone.


Yes, if people on the left are mad, it's that they are mad at other liberals for thinking Ivanka is going to help curb her father's worst impulses. There's not much evidence she can.

Mostly she's someone who looks nice and says a whole lot of nothing.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842840684 said:

Yes, if people on the left are mad, it's that they are mad at other liberals for thinking Ivanka is going to help curb her father's worst impulses. There's not much evidence she can.


Expecting anybody to reel in Trump is astoundingly stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that Ivanka is a political "liberal" who donated money to Hillary's first campaign back in 2007, and hosted a fundraiser for Cory Booker in 2013.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842840695 said:

But that doesn't change the fact that Ivanka is a political "liberal" who donated money to Hillary's first campaign back in 2007, and hosted a fundraiser for Cory Booker in 2013.


That doesn't mean a whole lot. Donald Trump himself has changed his tune on the Clintons multiple times.

http://www.newsweek.com/history-donald-trump-bill-clinton-friendship-464360
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842840695 said:

Expecting anybody to reel in Trump is astoundingly stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that Ivanka is a political "liberal" who donated money to Hillary's first campaign back in 2007, and hosted a fundraiser for Cory Booker in 2013.




Where do you think people like Clinton and Booker get money if not from people like the Trumps?
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842840695 said:

Expecting anybody to reel in Trump is astoundingly stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that Ivanka is a political "liberal" who donated money to Hillary's first campaign back in 2007, and hosted a fundraiser for Cory Booker in 2013.


http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/28/426888268/donald-trumps-flipping-political-donations

I guess Donald was (is?) a political "liberal" too, huh?
jyamada
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister;842840198 said:

Robert Mueller is beyond reproach. If he clears Trump and his campaign, I will apologize to all Trump supporters as well as the Moderators of this board. If he doesn't, all the Left Wing Conspiracy theories and all the Fake News claims in the world will not keep the cell doors from slamming tight each night. Mueller Walked the Walk:

"Mueller enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1968, attending officer candidate school, Army Ranger School and Army jump school.[8] He then served as an officer leading a rifle platoon of the 3rd Marine Division during the Vietnam War;[2] he eventually became aide-de-camp to 3rd Marine Division's commanding general.[8] He received the Bronze Star, two Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.[2]" Wikipedia


Your voice is definitely needed during this time of crisis that has befallen our country! Welcome back, Bearister!
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Actually I think you've ignored his actual accomplishments through his presidential actions. He has appointed climate change opponents to key positions in the government where they can erase 40 years of government research and experience overnight. Free Speech, hardly, you can no longer mention climate change in these departments. Officially science of the last forty years has been institutionally abandoned in favor of creationist faith. The President is a promoter, a huckster, a flim flam man (must see George C Scott movie for this era, his grin is so familiar); he is not a competent business man or a builder; those he hires, denigrates, and fires. He is reducing spending in R&D; which is the only way in which the US has stayed competitive. Instead he (and the GOP in large parts) are REGRESSIVES, trying to go back to the 1880s, when business was king, citizens had little rights and public servants far less common. Government services weren't outsourced, they weren't even provided. Back then the best athletes were not on sports teams but on fire departments; negotiating deals at the scene of a fire for fighting the fire.

We have been regressing in so many ways that most people are clueless, especially those under 30 who have never known anything different. I would suspect that only a small portion of the population knows that the overwhelming bulk of government services are provided by contractors, motivated not by the Public Good; but accumulating the greatest number of dollars for the smallest expenditure. The dutiful Government Worker has been replaced by the Government contract administrator, mandated to commit the greatest amount of money in the shortest period of time, value and loyalty are not part of the equation other than lip service. The Presidents actions have not been to drain the "swamp" (not sure he even knows that so many of his friends were actually the swamp), but instead to enhance, expand and perpetuate the swamp. In many ways we have regressed back to this time when the courts created the deception that corporations are 'people'; something that the current Court will expand.

Hasn't done anything? Bull; he has set in motion so many varied efforts to destroy so much of the best things in Government; protection of it's citizens from financial predators, the preservation of our wild areas thru the National Park Service; the delivery of clean water and clean air thru EPA actions; the rights of native Americans to have a say in their future; the list is longer but has been Trumped by his tweets.


Strykur;842840600 said:

LOL he scares you? Please, other than putting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, he hasn't really done anything. At worst he's incompetent. I can live with that.

Well duh, because the GOP are the only people left in America who want to keep this country from turning into Venezuela.

If you love free markets, free speech and gun ownership, they are the only game in town now.
jyamada
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149;842840734 said:

Actually I think you've ignored his actual accomplishments through his presidential actions. He has appointed climate change opponents to key positions in the government where they can erase 40 years of government research and experience overnight. Free Speech, hardly, you can no longer mention climate change in these departments. Officially science of the last forty years has been institutionally abandoned in favor of creationist faith. The President is a promoter, a huckster, a flim flam man (must see George C Scott movie for this era, his grin is so familiar); he is not a competent business man or a builder; those he hires, denigrates, and fires. He is reducing spending in R&D; which is the only way in which the US has stayed competitive. Instead he (and the GOP in large parts) are REGRESSIVES, trying to go back to the 1880s, when business was king, citizens had little rights and public servants far less common. Government services weren't outsourced, they weren't even provided. Back then the best athletes were not on sports teams but on fire departments; negotiating deals at the scene of a fire for fighting the fire.

We have been regressing in so many ways that most people are clueless, especially those under 30 who have never known anything different. I would suspect that only a small portion of the population knows that the overwhelming bulk of government services are provided by contractors, motivated not by the Public Good; but accumulating the greatest number of dollars for the smallest expenditure. The dutiful Government Worker has been replaced by the Government contract administrator, mandated to commit the greatest amount of money in the shortest period of time, value and loyalty are not part of the equation other than lip service. The Presidents actions have not been to drain the "swamp" (not sure he even knows that so many of his friends were actually the swamp), but instead to enhance, expand and perpetuate the swamp. In many ways we have regressed back to this time when the courts created the deception that corporations are 'people'; something that the current Court will expand.

Hasn't done anything? Bull; he has set in motion so many varied efforts to destroy so much of the best things in Government; protection of it's citizens from financial predators, the preservation of our wild areas thru the National Park Service; the delivery of clean water and clean air thru EPA actions; the rights of native Americans to have a say in their future; the list is longer but has been Trumped by his tweets.


Well said, SP!
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trumpster finally going to places that appreciate and love his talent-Saudi Arabia and Israel
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jyamada;842840729 said:

Your voice is definitely needed during this time of crisis that has befallen our country! Welcome back, Bearister!


Thank you, Sir. My son graduated Santa Clara Law School today. Leon Panetta was the Commencement Speaker. He knocked it out of the park discussing the current political environment.

https://www.scu.edu/news-and-events/press-releases/2017/may-2017/a-trumpet-call-to-defend-the-rule-of-law.html
"We are a nation that builds bridges, not walls," he said. "And most of all, we need to respect the truth." Leon Panetta
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Go Bears!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/opinion/sunday/4-year-olds-children-trump-gopnik.html




sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The elephant in the room that most seem to be ignoring is the racketeering crimes possibly committed. Trump's chief financial bank has been fined mega millions for laundering $11 BILLION in Russian money (the US attorney investigating was fired by Trump). The laundering method involved buying real estate with dirty money and then reselling it for 'clean' money. Trump has sold hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate to Russians with "dirty money". His real estate business as family owned cannot hide behind unknown stockholder faces; he is wholly responsible. Under RICO statutes the use of his real estate empire to launder money does not have to be intentional to violate the law and make him culpable. The Trump University case was a RICO case, which Trump settled without admitting guilt to avoid the trial where he could have been also found criminally guilty. However the Deutsche Bank Russian money laundering through NY real estate is likely to net big fish other than Trump. Should Trump be excused from prosecution as a sitting President if it's only a billion or two that his real estate firm laundered?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149;842840886 said:

The elephant in the room that most seem to be ignoring is the racketeering crimes possibly committed. Trump's chief financial bank has been fined mega millions for laundering $11 BILLION in Russian money (the US attorney investigating was fired by Trump). The laundering method involved buying real estate with dirty money and then reselling it for 'clean' money. Trump has sold hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate to Russians with "dirty money". His real estate business as family owned cannot hide behind unknown stockholder faces; he is wholly responsible. Under RICO statutes the use of his real estate empire to launder money does not have to be intentional to violate the law and make him culpable. The Trump University case was a RICO case, which Trump settled without admitting guilt to avoid the trial where he could have been also found criminally guilty. However the Deutsche Bank Russian money laundering through NY real estate is likely to net big fish other than Trump. Should Trump be excused from prosecution as a sitting President if it's only a billion or two that his real estate firm laundered?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-conversation_us_591dac5ce4b094cdba51c404
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"White House adviser Kellyanne Conway and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have already been scolded for allegedly using their offices to promote financial gain, but the message clearly has not sunk in. The rule technically does not cover the president, but the noxious appearance of self-interest now permeates the administration."

"Everything from doubling the new-membership fee and renting golf carts to Secret Service agents at Mar-a-Lago to sweeping up 38 trademarks in China on a single day has turned the White House into an imitation of foreign kleptomaniac regimes" (AKA Russia).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/19/the-stench-of-a-corrupt-president-wafts-into-virginia-and-beyond/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na&utm_term=.6ca4289b002f

"All of this presents a clear opportunity for the GOP House and Senate to stop facilitating corruption and enabling possible violations of the emoluments clause."

Bottom Line - the DOJ is not going to charge the President with wrong doing; If Congress (AKA GOP) does nothing he is golden...




bearister;842840897 said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-impeachment-conversation_us_591dac5ce4b094cdba51c404
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You guys should be a little careful with your sources for news. WaPo has gotten numerous things factually incorrect, such as their breaking news story that the Russians had hacked our power grid (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.49622a92b10a), the NY Times with their sordid history of bias and HuffPo which recently published an Op Ed calling for public harassment of elected officials - which some content has contributed to acts of violence against Congressman (such as one from The Left driving a Congressman off the road and others receiving death threats). On this last point, I posted previously about violence and many here said it wasn't the left, it was Antifa and other extremists. This latest business disproves that point. As I've said before, this is dangerous, unnecessary and will beget more violence in return. Everyone needs to tone it down a bit, and in my humble opinion that starts with the rhetoric we often see in these threads on BI.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks Tequila. You have probably pointed out 20 of the last 2 times mainstream media has gotten things wrong. And they at least print retractions when they get a story wrong.

For purposes of clarity, please tell us what reliable news sources you prefer and whether they ever get anything factually incorrect.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp;842840975 said:

You guys should be a little careful with your sources for news. WaPo has gotten numerous things factually incorrect, such as their breaking news story that the Russians had hacked our power grid (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.49622a92b10a), the NY Times with their sordid history of bias and HuffPo which recently published an Op Ed calling for public harassment of elected officials - which some content has contributed to acts of violence against Congressman (such as one from The Left driving a Congressman off the road and others receiving death threats). On this last point, I posted previously about violence and many here said it wasn't the left, it was Antifa and other extremists. This latest business disproves that point. As I've said before, this is dangerous, unnecessary and will beget more violence in return. Everyone needs to tone it down a bit, and in my humble opinion that starts with the rhetoric we often see in these threads on BI.


Right Winger and Trump lover and apologist Pat Buchanan reads and annotates the print editions of his five preferred papers everyday: the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times.

What is your list of news sources where you find the truth?

On another issue: With regard to Flynn asserting the 5th, Trump is on record regarding what he thinks of people who do so:

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment," Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842840985 said:

For purposes of clarity, please tell us what reliable news sources you prefer and whether they ever get anything factually incorrect.


He believes the sources telling him that the anti-Trump protests are filled with "paid protesters."

http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?104037-OT-election&p=842764753&viewfull=1#post842764753

So the answer is whatever confirms his previously held assumptions.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842841034 said:

....So the answer is whatever confirms his previously held assumptions.


"Three reasons why Trumpeters are unable to accept even legitimate criticism of Trump;

"The first is belief perseverance, which is the idea that once-formed, beliefs are resistant to change. Another principle is commitment. When we make a choice, we are hesitant to change. A third principle is confirmation bias, which suggests that we take in new information that is in line with our preexisting beliefs and disregard contrary information."
Patrick Mattimore
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister;842841042 said:

"Three reasons why Trumpeters are unable to accept even legitimate criticism of Trump;

"The first is belief perseverance, which is the idea that once-formed, beliefs are resistant to change. Another principle is commitment. When we make a choice, we are hesitant to change. A third principle is confirmation bias, which suggests that we take in new information that is in line with our preexisting beliefs and disregard contrary information."
Patrick Mattimore


Flip that around, and it's the same script that explains why leftists cannot accept Trump as the President.

But back to what you were saying, the coverage surrounding Trump has been so absurdly biased that even Harvard has noticed a significant distortion in media reporting, and why pay attention to biased media?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice try Strykur. Did the study also find that the media was biased against Assad? How about Bin Laden? Polpot? Even the link you served up in support of your position says that the coverage is negative because he's doing a bad job.

Is this the best you can do to support your chosen leader?

From the article defending Trump:
Quote:

Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.


According to the study:
Quote:

Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks;842841055 said:

Nice try Strykur. Did the study also find that the media was biased against Assad? How about Bin Laden? Polpot? Even the link you served up in support of your position says that the coverage is negative because he's doing a bad job.


OK I have fucking had it with you and your clueless bullshit. Did you seriously mention Trump in the same vein as Assad, BIN LADEN, AND FUCKING POLPOT? Trump is now equivalent to mass-murdering dictators? Do you even have a Cal degree?

[SIZE=5]YOU JUST COMPARED TRUMP TO BIN LADEN.

****. YOU.
[/SIZE]
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842841054 said:

Flip that around, and it's the same script that explains why leftists cannot accept Trump as the President....


That tactic was used by Trump during the debate when he said: "I'm not a puppet, you're a puppet."

It is a tactic that is often used by those who utilize Gish Gallop, like he and his posse do.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strykur;842841062 said:

OK I have fucking had it with you and your clueless bullshit. Did you seriously mention Trump in the same vein as Assad, BIN LADEN, AND FUCKING POLPOT? Trump is now equivalent to mass-murdering dictators? Do you even have a Cal degree?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Quote:

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks Sycasey for understanding.

Strykur - for so many reasons I would never substantively compare Trump to those guys.

To be fair though, don't you think if you asked Trump he would say all three were strong leaders and he respects strength? Isn't that what he said about Putin?

:beer:
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well I think with the latest relevations it's become fairly clear that Trump can be convicted of obstruction of justice. He is so incompetent and clumsy that the evidence of his obstruction has been documented, and in some cases even by people he himself appointed! We've seen some bozos in politics but no one quite as predictably bad as Trump. It took him less than 100 days to confirm his many critics' predictions of him.

Just to recap - there was evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election in a multiple of ways, including by infiltrating Trump's campaign. That evidence was turned over to the FBI by the CIA and along with other evidence formed the basis of an investigation into this behavior.

Trump, on the record, asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn and to confirm that Trump personally wasn't being investigated. Multiple times. Then a Comey went before congress to testify at a high level to the existence of an investigation, so Trump asked, again on the record, two of his high level intelligence appointees (Coats and Rogers) to publicly knock down stories about the ongoing investigation. They both refused to do so but documented the requests. As information continue to come out about the investigation, and perhaps as Trump learned that one of his high level advisors became a person of interest (rumored to be Kushner) he fired Comey. Then the next day he divulged highly classified intelligence from another nation to Russian diplomats/operatives as well as Russian media in attendance and told them he fired Comey because he was "crazy, a real nutjob" and that the investigation into Russia really was a problem for him.

Taking all of this together, even if you love Trump's policies and think he is doing what he thinks is in the country's best interests, how can you support a president with so little self-control and frankly ability to execute? Any other president would be smart enough to use third parties and have plausible deniability. Apparently Trump isn't even smart enough to watch a spy movie to figure out how to fool the American public.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My only question is how long house and senate republicans will continue to swim upstream as the circle closes around Trump and his administration? The testimony given today indicates that the CIA saw enough interaction between the Russians and the Trump campaign that they referred their findings to the FBI. Manafort and Stone are turning over documents while Flynn takes the fifth, transcripts from a meeting between the Russians and Trump as well as Trumps own comments which seem to confirm obstruction, the number of subpoenas being issued in Washington D.C., and finally the number of attorneys being retained by former and current Trump associates indicate that people are scared. How long will they continue to support Trump and will it be at their own detriment? The only way Trump survives this is if republicans ignore the findings, bury their heads, and vote en bloc, which would be political suicide. Every day there is a new revelation which confirms Trump's inability or incompetence is govern as POTUS.
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The fact that Trump was heavily financially embedded with Russian dirty money for many years should have been a tip-off of 'deep' ties to the Russian kleptocracy.

He wasn't vetted as he hadn't been a political candidate and now his shady past is coming to light. Nothing he has done is inconsistent with his 'history' which most of this country knew nothing about.

A point often ignored, the people who knew Trump the best; the citizens of New York voted two to one against him; the rest of the
country voted in ignorance.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149;842840886 said:

The elephant in the room that most seem to be ignoring is the racketeering crimes possibly committed. Trump's chief financial bank has been fined mega millions for laundering $11 BILLION in Russian money (the US attorney investigating was fired by Trump). The laundering method involved buying real estate with dirty money and then reselling it for 'clean' money. Trump has sold hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate to Russians with "dirty money". His real estate business as family owned cannot hide behind unknown stockholder faces; he is wholly responsible. Under RICO statutes the use of his real estate empire to launder money does not have to be intentional to violate the law and make him culpable. The Trump University case was a RICO case, which Trump settled without admitting guilt to avoid the trial where he could have been also found criminally guilty. However the Deutsche Bank Russian money laundering through NY real estate is likely to net big fish other than Trump. Should Trump be excused from prosecution as a sitting President if it's only a billion or two that his real estate firm laundered?

He has appointed climate change opponents to key positions in the government where they can erase 40 years of government research and experience overnight. Free Speech, hardly, you can no longer mention climate change in these departments. Officially science of the last forty years has been institutionally abandoned in favor of creationist faith. The President ... (and the GOP in large parts) are REGRESSIVES, trying to go back to the 1880s, when business was king, citizens had little rights and public servants far less common.

We have been regressing in so many ways that most people are clueless, especially those under 30 who have never known anything different. I would suspect that only a small portion of the population knows that the overwhelming bulk of government services are provided by contractors, motivated not by the Public Good; but accumulating the greatest number of dollars for the smallest expenditure. The dutiful Government Worker has been replaced by the Government contract administrator, mandated to commit the greatest amount of money in the shortest period of time, value and loyalty are not part of the equation other than lip service. The Presidents actions have not been to drain the "swamp" (not sure he even knows that so many of his friends were actually the swamp), but instead to enhance, expand and perpetuate the swamp. In many ways we have regressed back to this time when the courts created the deception that corporations are 'people'; something that the current Court will expand.



You're holding Trump accountable for Deutsche Bank financial wrongdoings because he happened to deal with that bank, a giant financial group with $2 trillion in assets? That would be like saying a big client of Wells Fargo is guilty by association for their fake account scandal.

Real estate developers aren't responsible for clearing every customer who comes in to buy a property, it's the job of authorities and to a lesser extent, the local banks they use. And unlike for the cocaine-fueled real estate boom in 1980s Miami, there is no evidence that Trump's real estate ventures were closely linked to dirty money, his rise is due to the explosive growth in a global ultra-rich class that has heavily invested in RE from places like NYC, London or the exclusive parts of south Florida.

There is a kind of dumbing down from sane posters like you who get emotionally so caught up in visceral Trump phobia that their rational side checks out, and unfortunately the MSM has been feeding all this. So many points are utterly ludicrous. Like the one above, or the idea that Trump is "not a competent businessman or builder" when the guy is a billionaire who started out with $12M and succeeded in a very competitive environment. In what universe is this not a great success?

I'm not an apologist for Trump, there is a lot to criticize about him, but he's definitely better than the alternative candidate, who by comparison gets virtually no scrutiny from most liberals. Compare for instance the outrage on Trump University, where he's basically guilty of selling an overpriced product (which is pretty much a standard practice in the for-profit American education system) vs the Clintons' $17 million Laureate University pay to play scheme.

Your interpretation of Trump vs "Science" is equally misguided. The narrative that he's going to wipe out 40 years of global warming research is itself clueless, as is the near-religious dogma of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, the idea that CO2 generated by human activity is going to have apocalyptic consequences on humanity.

It ignores the fact that every CAGW model put forth since the 1980s has already been [U]proven[/U] to be wildly alarmist, and that on the other side of the equation, the cost of imposing massive CO2 emissions cuts is a known to be extremely high, and will be borne disproportionally by the poorest segments of society and the developing world. Those policies are setting up trillion dollar carbon trade and taxation schemes that will effectively result in a huge transfer of wealth from the poorest and middle class to the mega-rich.

Finally, there is also the idea that Trump is going to ruin public policy-making when in fact the process was already corrupted through the bones by revolving door policies and corporate takeover of the regulatory process.

Is it really that hard not to get caught up in political partisanship and visceral Trump-phobia when considering current and past political issues? Unfortunately at this point, this is a rhetorical question...
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.