Lol 85 hasn't posted in here since it became evident that these "crazy conspiracy theories" are actually not only 100% true, but just the tip of the iceberg. Patheticly ignorant partisan hack.
Crook impregnates a playmate and then trades $1B gvmt contracts to fall guy who paid the hush money.
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
That tip is aimed at both parties.
As a Libertarian, I'm eating more popcorn as of late. I think we're going to see the full extent of the 'problem' in our Democratic-Republic at the capitol city. And the DNC has far more secrets to expose, in a Democrats-only membership city.
May the Hunger Games conclude like I want them to!
Trump impregnated a woman
Woman gets abortion
Broidy pays 1.6M hush money for Trump
Broidy meets with Trump
They discuss Middle East peace
UAE award Broidy 600M contract
That's the cliffs of what's being alleged. Do any red hats have a problem with this? Multiple crimes involved if this is what happened but does anyone even care?
Woman gets abortion
Broidy pays 1.6M hush money for Trump
Broidy meets with Trump
They discuss Middle East peace
UAE award Broidy 600M contract
That's the cliffs of what's being alleged. Do any red hats have a problem with this? Multiple crimes involved if this is what happened but does anyone even care?
If all this is true and a link is established, then it's corruption and corruption is wrong. It's prevalent in all of Washington and has been ongoing for years, even by your beloved Obama and his administration.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/think-obama-administration-wasnt-corrupt-think-again/
I remember the university of Phoenix deal. Awfully convenient how that worked out.
Obama says that the government is going to stop giving loans to students going to UofP.
Stock price crashes
Obama buddies buy it
Obama says nevermind, we're still going to give loans to those students.
Hmmmm.......
So it's wrong but you're ok with it because Obama did it too.
I do recall that time when Obama had a donor illegally contribute to campaign expense in order to win foreign contracts.
No I'm not okay with it. I'm not okay with any corruption. Please reread what I wrote.
Definitely a huge conflict-of-interest at a minimum. The reason one avoids conflicts-of-interest is so they cannot even be accused.
This is why I didn't expect the swamp to be drained.
Drain the Swamp is a major eye roll from me. He wanted to drain the swamp of career politicians and replace them with what? Equally morally corrupt big business men?
Yay?
Nobody will ever change Washington imo. Many show up with great intentions. Soon they are part of the problem. We are screwed
All it takes to get a billion dollars in contracts is to pretend like you knocked up a playmate and aborted the baby.
Indeed. It's like watching the rich kid on the playground get into an argument with an overbearing teacher. It's great the rich kid can 'talk back' and get away with it, but it still doesn't solve the problem. I told many of my Conservative colleagues that before they voted for Trump.
To me, it was going to be the same result, no matter who won.
BTW, I don't think you realize how familiar this all sounds with Bill and Hillary, from Loral to Uranium Ore. Business relationships and lawyers are intertwined, and it's difficult to get to the truth.
The only facts that are clear that there were total 'conflicts-of-interest' that people just didn't care to mitigate. There could be more truth, but the fact that no one cares about even the appearance of 'conflicts-of-interest,' and the media and other talking pieces in both the left and right will downplay them, is the problem in the first place.
If we forced people not to have any 'conflicts-of-interest' in the first place, and held them to that standard, then we'd see a lot of things change. But until the left and right stop only focusing on the other half, and hold them all accountable, people will continue to get away with whatever they think they can.
To the victors go the spoils. It's Constitutional America at its finest for 230 years.
I've always been amused at the term "drain the swamp", and how people don't realize that its a direct reference to Mussolini.
Indeed. Similar has often been used for consolidation of power.
Which is why we can be more like the French (bad thing) than the British (good thing), in this regard. At least the British citizens look at things and assume they are tabloid by default, and only believe them after they are proven. Here in the US, we're always saying, "we just need 1 leader to fix it," and then go out and find media we want to agree with, even if it is totally tabloid.
Campaign finance laws are the problem in the first place! We Libertarians have long stated this, it's about selectively applying 'ethics,' which are a joke.
Instead, all money is valid, period. Everyone can contribute, period. No limits. But fail to disclose, and it's fraud. Fraud is a crime.
Problem solved. Seriously, straight-forward, simple solution.
For our next, Libertarian logic trick, let's talk the environment. Tax impact, tax emissions, one rate everyone pays -- the consumer. DISCLAIMER: We stole this 'common sense' from the Swiss.
Great idea but that isn't our system and it isn't our laws and it's not our tax code so the president needs to follow our existing laws.
Then you run the risk that the governing body won't share your beliefs on what's good or bad.
Yes, our system is blame and special interest, which means some corporations pay, and others don't. E.g., Cap'n trade is an utter joke that just has consolidated more control into bigger energy companies for no environmental protection (and possibly worse).
Laws should be written to be effective. Germany is learning this first-hand, as they are missing their targets, and is moving towards the Swiss approach, which is far more capitalistic.
Doesn't have to be part of a tax overall, but just a new law.
Wait?! Are you saying Trump doesn't follow existing laws? Did Obama?
This is my issue. We have laws and we argue over whether the Executive should ...
A) Enforce them
B) Ignore them, or
C) Write an executive order that defines enforcement of "A", or
D) Write an executive order that is in conflict with "A"
Obama excelled at B and, far more D, and people are complaining when Trump does A and C.
I don't like Trump, and I don't like a lot of laws, but when he does "C," it's not his fault that "A" is a reality.
E.g., on drug enforcement, we need to repeal drug enforcement laws and legalize many. Stop asking for "B", let alone "D". Same with immigration. Change the laws, quite doing temporary "D" and other crap.
Remember that time the 10 year troll on here tried to lie and claim that foreign government contracts are US Govt contracts?
Lol good times
Lol good times
You think we need different laws and that it's ok if Trump violates them because Obama did. The laws are the laws and that's it until they are actually changed.
They'll all get away with it. There is no law and order party that will be elected and hold anybody accountable. If the dems win, their agenda will be on healthcare. If the republicans win, they won't do crap. Nothing is going to happen because 80% of them all do the same stuff and don't want the arrows turned around on them.
No. I'm saying -- for the most part -- Obama didn't enforce the law, and didn't work with Congress to overturn many, while Trump is enforcing the law, that still exists. This is the case with a lot of things from immigration to Israel.
Now Trump is getting some enforcement wrong, and the courts are telling him that. This includes both interrupting some issues of Visas as well as detaining legal residents and citizens. But otherwise, the law is the law. Don't like it, overturn it.
Obama also signed many agreements that Congress did not make into law, so Trump is also free to undo them. This is everything from Iran to Paris. Clinton had the same problem, including not getting a single senator in his own party to vote for Kyoto. So when the US media wants to stop blaming Trump for things that the Democratic party is just as responsible for, I'll listen. Until then, the left is quite hypocritical.
Obama also violated things like the War Powers Act. That one is still the one that bothers me most. We'll see if Trump pulls similarly. His administration is still young.
Exactly. Which is why we should be overturning them, instead of debating about lack of enforcement or not proper enforcement.
Obama not enforcing laws and debating if Trump is enforcing them correctly, is just the bad civics sideshow. Obama has gone far, far more negative, especially late in his administration, and Trump's still early into his.
How do you not see that there's a difference between Obama not enforcing every law on the books and Trump breaking the law and then choosing to not enforce specific laws which he has broken. The president cant have the power to just say eh, that ones not important anymore as he receives illegal campaign donations.
Because Obama broke the law too! Again, the Trump administration is still young. He's got plenty of time yet to drop farther. But for now, Obama broke far, far more laws.
In fact, his anti-militia stance resulted in a 12-fold increase in federal watch lists with absolutely no due process. It's one of the most under-reported aspects of his administration.
First rule of being a Libertarian: always tell people you're Libertarian.
It's become necessary because people put you in a box based on your most recent statement. Libertarians don't typically follow the expected path of agreeing with all things left or right. Its just a way of explaining how they don't fall into a neat box that people expect.
but they actually do fall right into a neat box that people expect: a box of Ayn Rand's childlike philosophies.
Really? The reason that libertarians will never be a political power is because they can't agree on anything.
No, it's because they are always the devil's advocate on anything. There's no reason for a libertarian to support Trump. He's the most fiscally irresponsible president in modern history and he's shit on social issues.
Support a dem and get half your platform done. Or admit you're only a libertarian so you can't be criticized about how awful your team is and you don't want to feel bad about it.
The Republican party of sound financial decisions is gone buddy.
