Page 6 of 25 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 601
  1. #126
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Here we go, Don The Con exploiting his office for personal enrichment

    Trump Organization eyes Taiwan for newest luxury resort locatio
    n


    Donald Trump may have ulterior motives for his jaw-dropping call to Taiwan Friday, considering his company is looking to build luxury hotels and resorts on the rogue Chinese providence, Shaghaiist reports.

    Trump shocked political observers Friday, initiating the first US-Taiwanese presidential contact in over three decades.

    The move risked a major dispute with China, which considers Taiwan to be one of its providences.

    In 1979, the U.S. adopted a One China position, freezing diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

    Despite the historically frosty relations between the United States and Taiwan, Trump picked up the phone to peak with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, incensing Beijing according to geopolitical experts.

    As it turns out, the head-scratching move by Trump may not be so surprising afterall. The Gothamist LLC publication Shaghaiist—which covers news and events in China—

    Trump is eyeing Taiwan as his next location for a series of luxury hotels and resorts.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/reve...e+Raw+Story%29

    His First :




    Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-02-2016 at 07:48 PM.

  2. #127
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    We May Not Know if Trump's Foreign Business Deals Violate the Cons ution


    The question of whether President-elect Donald Trump will run afoul of federal conflict-of-interest rules or the Cons ution because of his extensive foreign investments has been the subject of intense scrutiny among legal and ethics scholars.

    Legally, his foreign licensing deals could violate the Cons ution. An example: During his presidential run, Trump's name was used to market a never-finished luxury hotel in Azerbaijan, built by the billionaire son of the country's transportation minister. The deal earned Trump more than $2.8 million between January 2014 and May 2016, according to financial-disclosure filings he filed as a candidate. (See his 2015 and 2016 reports here.)


    If this type of deal occurs during his presidency and fetches anything above what's considered fair market value, it would almost certainly violate the Emoluments Clause, a provision of the Cons ution ******meant to head off conflicts between the national interest and presidents' self-interest.

    The clause, in Article 1, Section 9, of the Cons ution, prevents the president from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or le, of any kind w***hatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." A more stringent interpretation of the clause -- which has never been tested in the courts -- would bar a president from receiving any payment from a foreign government en y.

    A violation of the Cons ution could result in impeachment proceedings.


    But how will we know if Trump is violating the clause? Because of limited financial-disclosure requirements, we might not.


    There are two reasons for this:

    One is that the disclosures required from presidents are limited.

    The other is that Trump has refused to voluntarily release his tax returns or other business details, a significant break from presidential administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter.


    "You can't grasp all the potential conflicts and issues that the Trump empire poses by just looking at a personal financial disclosure," said Matthew T. Sanderson, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale who has served as legal counsel on three Republican presidential campaigns.


    And Trump won't have to file a comprehensive annual report of his assets, income, gifts and stock portfolio until May 2018,

    according to US Office of Government Ethics requirements. (Trump has so far refused to release his federal or state income tax returns; three pages of his 1995 New York state income tax return obtained by The New York Times showed he declared $916 million in losses but few other details.)

    "only the crooked media makes this a big deal!"

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...e-cons ution

    My guess is Don The Con will miss the May 2018 filing, saying he's being audited, or equivalent lie.



  3. #128
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,794
    What nuthin?

    Four solid conflicts of interest, and those are just the big ones.
    It's not clear who would have standing to bring charges under the emoluments clause -- it's never been done.

    The baked in solution is impeachment. Hard to imagine what could bring the Republicans to do it.

  4. #129
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,794
    the only apparent checks to the president using his office to enlarge his own estate during his term are normative and political. Trump has discarded the first, the second is inexpedient for the party in power.

  5. #130
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Post Count
    3,755
    at supposed libertarians voting for this corporatist piece of garbage.

  6. #131
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Trump Almost Certainly Will Violate the Cons ution if He Continues to Own His Businesses

    Far from ending with President-elect Trump’s announcement that he will separate himself from the management of his business empire, the cons utional debate about the meaning of the Emoluments Clause — and whether Trump will be violating it — is likely just beginning.

    That’s because the Emoluments Clause seems to bar Trump’s ownership of his business. It has little to do with his management of it. Trump’s tweets last Wednesday said

    he would be “completely out of business operations.”


    But unless Trump sells or gives his business to his children before taking office the Emoluments Clause would almost certainly be violated.

    Even if he does sell or give it away,

    any retained residual interest, or any sale payout based on the company’s results, would still give him a stake in its fortunes, again fairly clearly violating the Cons ution.


    The Emoluments Clause bars U.S. officials, including the president, from receiving payments from foreign governments or foreign government en ies unless the payments are specifically approved by Congress.

    As ProPublica and othershave detailed, Trump’s business has ties with foreign government en ies ranging from loans and leases with the Bank of China to what appear to be tax-supported hotel deals in India and elsewhere. The full extent of such ties remains unknown, and Trump has refused to disclose them, or to make public his tax returns, through which many such deals, if they exist, would be revealed.

    Foreign government investments in Trump en ies would also be covered by the clause, as would foreign government officials paying to stay in Trump hotels, so long as Trump stands to share in the revenues.

    One misconception about the Emoluments Clause in early press coverage of it in the wake of Trump’s election is being clarified as scholars look more closely at the provision’s history. That was the suggestion that it would not be a violation for the Trump Organization to conduct business with foreign government en ies if “fair market value” was received by the governments.


    This view had been attributed to Professor Richard Painter, a former official of the George W. Bush administration, and privately by some others.

    But Professor Laurence Tribe, the author of the leading treatise on cons utional law, and others said

    the Emoluments Clause was more sweeping, and mandated a ban on such dealings without congressional approval.

    Painter now largely agrees, telling ProPublica that no fair market value test would apply to the sale of services (specifically including hotel rooms), and such a test would apply only to the sale of goods. The Trump Organization mostly sells services, such as hotel stays, golf memberships, branding deals and management services.


    The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Cons ution. It bars any “person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or le, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state” “without the consent of the Congress.” The word “emolument” comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain. The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Cons ution in 1788-89. The clause was derived from a Dutch rule dating to 1751.


    The clause was added to the draft Cons ution at the Cons utional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his state’s ratification convention in 1788, Pinckney’s motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congress’s ambassador to France. As Randolph said,

    “An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states.”

    The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented, after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee. At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain.

    The clause was part of the basis for Alexander Hamilton’s defense of the Cons ution, in Federalist 22, as addressing “one of the weak sides of republics”: “that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

    There is no question that the Emoluments Clause applies to the president.

    President Obama’s counsel sought an opinion in 2009 on whether it barred him from accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. The Justice Department concluded that it did not, in part based on historical precedent (the Prize had also been awarded to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Vice President Charles Dawes and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), but primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental en y.


    The clause does not seem ever to have been interpreted by a court, but it has been the subject of a number of opinions, over the years, of the attorney general and the comptroller general.

    Nearly all of these opinions have concluded that the clause is definitive.

    In 1902, an attorney general’s opinion said it is “directed against every kind of influence by foreign governments upon officers of the United States.”

    In 1970, a comptroller general opinion declared that the clause’s “drafters intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability.”

    A 1994 Justice Department opinion said “the language of Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified.”

    Among the ties deemed to violate the clause was a Nuclear Regulatory Commission employee undertaking consultant work for a firm retained by the government of Mexico.


    Congress has passed one law giving blanket approval to a set of payments from foreign government en ies. Known as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, it is limited to gifts of “minimal value” (set as of 1981 at $100), educational scholarships and medical treatment, travel entirely outside the country “consistent with the interests of the United States,” or “when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States.” The specificity of these few exceptions reinforces the notion that other dealings with foreign government en ies is forbidden without congressional approval.


    One attorney-general opinion from the Reagan administration offers the possibility of a more permissive interpretation of the Emoluments Clause, indicating it could be limited to “payments which have a potential of influencing or corrupting the recipient.” But whatever the meaning of this, it was the same Reagan Justice Department that banned the NRC employee from the Mexican-funded consultancy a year later.


    Ironically, an “originalist” reading of the clause — usually favored these days by conservatives as exemplified by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas — would seem to bind Trump more stringently,

    while a “living cons ution” approach — exemplified by liberals such as the late Justices Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall — might offer him greater la ude.


    Clearly, deciding what the Emoluments Clause means in a specific case is a complicated legal question. (The opinionon Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize runs to 13 printed pages.) But just as clearly, the judges of its meaning with respect to President Trump will be politicians rather than the Supreme Court.


    The controversies that swirled around Presidents Richard Nixonand Bill Clinton established a number of key points. Among them are that

    the sole remedy for a violation of the Cons ution by a president in office is impeachment, and that

    the House of Representatives is the sole judge of what cons utes an impeachable offense, while

    the Senate is the sole judge of whether such an alleged violation warrants removal from office.

    (Impeachments are very rare: articles of impeachment have been voted against only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, both of whom were acquitted by the Senate, while Nixon resigned ahead of likely impeachment. Fifteen federal judges have also been impeached, and eight removed, while four resigned.)


    The arguments of scholars and lawyers on the meaning of the Emoluments Clause may influence the public, and their elected representatives. But if Trump decides not to dispose of his business, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to do anything about his apparent violation of the Cons ution.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/print...ution_20161204



  7. #132
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    Here we go, Don The Con exploiting his office for personal enrichment

    Trump Organization eyes Taiwan for newest luxury resort locatio
    n


    Donald Trump may have ulterior motives for his jaw-dropping call to Taiwan Friday, considering his company is looking to build luxury hotels and resorts on the rogue Chinese providence, Shaghaiist reports.

    Trump shocked political observers Friday, initiating the first US-Taiwanese presidential contact in over three decades.

    The move risked a major dispute with China, which considers Taiwan to be one of its providences.

    In 1979, the U.S. adopted a One China position, freezing diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

    Despite the historically frosty relations between the United States and Taiwan, Trump picked up the phone to peak with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen, incensing Beijing according to geopolitical experts.

    As it turns out, the head-scratching move by Trump may not be so surprising afterall. The Gothamist LLC publication Shaghaiist—which covers news and events in China—

    Trump is eyeing Taiwan as his next location for a series of luxury hotels and resorts.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/reve...e+Raw+Story%29

    His First :




    The way you've discussed women ever since Trump won, makes you sound just as bad as a guy that says "grab them by the pussy". You're sort of invalidating your whole argument about trumps views on women.

    Also makes you sound like a gaping vagina yourself.

  8. #133
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    you've discussed women
    You Lie, you stinky vagina.

    The only "women" is First

  9. #134
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    You Lie, you stinky vagina.

    The only "women" is First
    You sound like a sex in the city character

  10. #135
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Ivanka Had Japanese Biz Deal Going When She Joined Dad's Meeting With PM




    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29

  11. #136
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Just How Badly Can the Trump Administration Corrupt the United States?

    Badly, and in unprecedented ways.

    One mistake in estimating the cost of corruption is to imagine that it largely consists of the value of bribes paid, lobbying efforts exerted, or ill-gotten profits obtained.

    Sadly, as Krueger pointed out, this represents only the smallest fraction of the full harm.

    That’s because, once rent-seeking becomes the way to get ahead, it changes the way a society is organized.

    Companies that offer quid pro quos to win contracts drive their more honest compe ors out of business, allowing the crooked companies to monopolize their markets.

    Public officials write rules with the express purpose of wrapping businesses in red tape, forcing them to pay yet more bribes to avoid pointless bureaucracy.

    And once it’s known that government jobs can be a source of enrichment, those positions attract candidates whose primary goal is personal profit rather than public service, leading to less scrupulous officials.

    While
    some think this is already the way things work in American politics, there’s a lot more money to be made on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than on Capitol Hill.

    Americans whose primary goal is personal wealth make a beeline for banking or the startup scene, not for public office.

    we do think that a shift to the kind of self-enriching society of middle-income (and corrupt) countries like Brazil or South Africa is within the realm of possibility.

    Trump, however, threatens to shift the balance between personal gain and public service in a way that we haven’t seen for more than a century.

    Politicians and their staffers who make their way through the revolving doors of government to lucrative board appointments and lobbying positions at least depart from public service before exploiting their connections. Indeed, they are required by law to do so.

    Trump, on the other hand, boasts that his political ascent will redound to his company’s benefit—“the brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before. I can’t help that, but I don’t care,” Trump told
    the New York Times—while at the same time asserting, also to the Times, that ethics laws are on his side and that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_dismal_science/2016/11/how_badly_can_the_trump_administration_corrupt_the _united_states.html

    I expect Trash + Repugs will drag govt down, corrupt it even more. Corruption is Trash's raison d'etre

    How will govt ever be sanitized? It won't.

    America is ed and un able.




  12. #137
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Ivanka Had Japanese Biz Deal Going When She Joined Dad's Meeting With PM




    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
    Again, this outlines the difficulties of just handing it over to his kids.

  13. #138
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Again, this outlines the difficulties of just handing it over to his kids.
    Mr and Mrs Ivanka are moving to DC. The despotic, nepotistic corruption will be total.

  14. #139
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,794
    even if Trump is and behaves like a saint, it may not matter:

    The discussion, then, can’t be limited to whether Trump is, in fact, acting in the best interests of the United States and whether the public can effectively monitor his dealings. Our concern must extend to the dilution of the United States’ power and distortion of its message on the world stage when it come to all manner of issues implicating U.S. diplomatic credibility and moral leadership.



    A prosaic example: In Turkey, not long after the Trump Organization inked a deal with the powerful Dogan Group to fix the Trump brand on a tower complex, the chairman of the Dogan Group, Aydin Dogan, was indicted on criminal smuggling—charges that critics say amounted to retaliation for his media outlet’s criticisms of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey is now in the midst of a brutal media crackdown that has triggered global condemnation. If Trump reaffirms the U.S. position on freedom of the press to Istanbul, to what extent will the moral force of the American message be undercut by Trump’s continuing financial connections to Dogan?


    In short, Trump’s global business interests present a problem of distributed risk across many foreign policy and national security vectors. By “distributed risk,” I mean that the presidency is as much a seat of vulnerability as it is a seat of power; the many en ies and governments that presently have the ability to affect President-elect Trump and his many business affiliates also, by extension, have the ability to affect the wellbeing and authority of the United States.
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/distribu...if-trump-saint

  15. #140
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "moral force of the American message"

    WTF? Countries don't have morals, ethics, aren't "persons". They have only interests and profit-seeking.

    America has always and will always support any other country, no matter how brutal, undemocratic, murderous, oppressive, as long as America's interests, profits are protected, increased, enabled.

    "moral force" G M A F B

  16. #141
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Trump delays announcement on his business until January

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...litics+News%29

    "blind trust"

    The corruption will be historic and invisible.

  17. #142
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,134
    Nothing like starting the day with a smile! Thanks Boo.

  18. #143
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,130
    Perry for secretary of energy

    . Whoops.

    Will perry dismantle the department?

  19. #144
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Federal agency: Trump would violate DC hotel lease as soon as he takes office

    The General Services Administration, which manages property owned by the federal government, including the Old Post Office that houses the Trump International Hotel, has concluded that the lease would violate federal conflict-of-interest rules once the Republican businessman is sworn in on Jan. 20, according to a letter to the agency from lawmakers.

    The letter referred to a Dec. 8 briefing to congressional staffers by a GSA official whom the letter did not name.

    “The Deputy Commissioner made clear that Mr. Trump must divest himself not only of managerial control, but of all ownership interest as well,” Maryland Representative Elijah mings and three other Democrats said in the letter, made public on Wednesday.


    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/fede...e+Raw+Story%29



  20. #145
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Trickle down baby! What's good for Trump is good for AMERICA!
    What is your position on the emoluments clause?

  21. #146
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    It's not clear who would have standing to bring charges under the emoluments clause -- it's never been done.

    The baked in solution is impeachment. Hard to imagine what could bring the Republicans to do it.
    I can pretty much guarantee that Democrats will be pushing for it, when Trump doesn't divest.

  22. #147
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    Ivanka Had Japanese Biz Deal Going When She Joined Dad's Meeting With PM




    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
    Conservatives and Replubicans have put their party over the good of the country here. They should be the ones yelling the loudest, if they really cared about doing the right thing.

    The fact that they make excuses, pretty much proves they don't care about ethics so much as winning. Winehole's talk about things that are corrosive to Democracy is pretty much spot on, and I can guarantee that no conservative on the board will get off their lazy asses and try to defend this .

    This election simply highlights the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican party to anybody with any sense.

  23. #148
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    For Trump's Top Diplomat, Questions Loom About Conflicts Of Interest

    Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, President-elect Trump's nominee for secretary of state, will have his Senate confirmation hearing in January. Before then, experts say, he'll have to think hard about how to divest from a company where he has spent his entire career.

    Tillerson reportedly owns 2.6 million shares of Exxon Mobil stock, which would be worth about $240 million, as of the Wall Street close on Tuesday.

    When John Kerry became secretary of state nearly four years ago, he and his wife, Teresa Heinz, divested from a long list of companies to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

    For the same reason, George Shultz — an executive at Bechtel before serving as Ronald Reagan's top diplomat — set up a blind trust, says Davis Robinson, the State Department's legal adviser at the time.

    But, Robinson says, "his was not as complicated as Mr. Tillerson, because Mr. Tillerson owns so much of Exxon Mobil stock."

    Blind trusts and divestment are two of the most common options to meet the requirements of federal ethics laws. And tax breaks allow wealthy appointees to defer capital-gains taxes when they sell off assets so they can serve in government.

    Paul Light, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service at New York University, says divestment is the most effective cure to conflict of interest concerns.

    "If you are to reassure the public that your negotiations with foreign governments have no tie to your financial interests, you divest," he says.

    For Tillerson, that may not be enough. Even if he divests from Exxon Mobil stock, he will face tough questions on Capitol Hill about his past dealings, especially in Russia. Tillerson opposed U.S. sanctions on Russia, imposed after Russia annexed Crimea, that slowed a joint project between Exxon Mobil and Russian energy giant Rosneft to drill in the Arctic.

    "It troubles me greatly that Mr. Tillerson would have reason to advocate for the rolling back of sanctions because that would be the best interests of his company," says Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "And it is my hope that he's enough of a patriot to separate his decades-long affiliation with this major oil company and the genuine interest of the American people."

    Russia isn't the only place of concern, Coons says. "I suspect we will be having discussions about a number of different countries where he negotiated relationships or deals with dictators or authoritarian regimes that worked for Exxon Mobil, but will not work for America's interests," he says.

    Edward Verona, a former Exxon Mobil colleague of Tillerson's in Russia, now with McLarty Associates in Washington, D.C., believes the oil executive will be able to make the switch to the State Department. "I don't believe that he would, certainly not consciously, do anything that would contravene the interests of the United States for the potential benefit of his former company. That's just my sense of him," he says.

    Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, says he will chair a confirmation hearing for Tillerson in early January. But before the nominee meets with any senators, he'll need to answer the committee's questionnaire about whether and how he will sever his business relationships with Exxon
    http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...ts-of-interest


    "but Hillary sold out her position as Secretary of State... Clinton foundation...!"

  24. #149
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Conservatives and Replubicans have put their party over the good of the country here.
    The Repugs do whatever their BigDonors pay them to do, or not do.

    iow, USA has not been For The People, not been a democracy, for a long time.

    It's an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy.

    The corruption of the political system is total.

  25. #150
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    51,121
    The Repugs do whatever their BigDonors pay them to do, or not do.

    iow, USA has not been For The People, not been a democracy, for a long time.

    It's an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatocracy.

    The corruption of the political system is total.
    You say these things as almost throwaways, but the number of billionaires in the upcoming administration makes it hard to dismiss this out of hand.

    It takes dip s like Trump to make your spiel plausible, and that is about as damning as it gets, no offense.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •