ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
You are one of those who think the judicial system is rigged to go after trump for « small alleged crimes ».
U don’t think it’s the same thing here except by your side ?
Pretty similar, but one was the president and the other a son of a president. It's all pathetic. Let Trump bang slimy hooks and let Hunter smoke his crack/keep Dad going. If Hunter were a contender for president, I'd say the situations are perfectly comparable, but since he isn't, it's a bit like running an earnings multiple on a tertiary hotel vs. an infill apartment. They're similar in that they're both real estate properties, but if an investor capped them the same, they would drown.
In a two party system, primaries matter a lot.
Republicans failed to do what the DNC only barely did in 2016, using all their power to defeat the extremist candidate in the primaries.
That was considered a mistake and something that was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for the GOP that cycle (Hillary was supposed to win with close to 100% probability and so on).
Except we discovered voters actually don't hate bizzarre candidates.
That brok
you can blame people all you like but the reality is that serious change is badly needed and people, stupid as they are, know it.
If decent partes dont offer anything other than not being nutters than they will increasingly vote for the nutters.
Pretty similar, but one was the president and the other a son of a president. It's all pathetic. Let Trump bang slimy hooks and let Hunter smoke his crack/keep Dad going. If Hunter were a contender for president, I'd say the situations are perfectly comparable, but since he isn't, it's a bit like running an earnings multiple on a tertiary hotel vs. an infill apartment. They're similar in that they're both real estate properties, but if an i
let Bill get a blowie in the oval office too right? you guys started this bs.
I think the problem back then was denying it had happened under oath, funny times when people took perjury seriously
The investigation was supposed to be about a land deal but somehow found a way to ask a married man under oath whether or not he cheated on his wife. That's why no reasonable person took that perjury seriously.
The investigation was supposed to be about a land deal but somehow found a way to ask a married man under oath whether or not he cheated on his wife. That's why no reasonable person took that perjury seriously.
Yeah its not like Bill cheated on his wife or accused of sexual assault or rape . Though the man did balance a budget
so he actually meant to write "let Republicans bang slimey hookers and blow anything a Democrat does out of proportion...."
got it.
The investigation was supposed to be about a land deal but somehow found a way to ask a married man under oath whether or not he cheated on his wife. That's why no reasonable person took that perjury seriously.
You know that wasn't the article of impeachment.
The point blank disgraceful questioning you refer to wasn't the perjury he was impeached for.
He later, having months to prepare, kept lying to a Gran jury about the details of that relationship, having already admitted "inappropriate intimate contact" and so on.
To a Gran jury, so under seal.
The he also lied about having had an affair to misrepresent is moral character when defending from sexual harassment accusation by another person: again very different than trying to protect your privacy, or marriage.
You lie about being an objectively untrustworthy person wrt sexual conduct when that is material to accusations against you of sexual misconduct
Yeah its not like Bill cheated on his wife or accused of sexual assault or rape . Though the man did balance a budget
The guy also managed to rein In defense expenditure at least for a while, not a small feature.
And he was tough on crime and tough in border security, a good guy.
But perjury is a serious matter
You know that wasn't the article of impeachment. The point blank disgraceful questioning you refer to wasn't the perjury he was impeached for.
No, I don't know that:
Article I of Impeachment Against William Jefferson Clinton
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
He later, having months to prepare, kept lying to a Gran jury about the details of that relationship, having already admitted "inappropriate intimate contact" and so on.
To a Gran jury, so under seal.
Like I said, lying under oath about cheating on his wife.
People don't want to pay high level public employees enough, they have to accept what might appear as corruption (it wasn't imo for RBG nor for Clarence to be clear).
If we want some of the best minds of their generation in key positions in the public sphere, we have to pay salaries competitives with the private sector.
Yes i am talking many millions per year at the very minimum for SCOTUS and the fed, 500k++ for the house, 2-3m for the senat
That's fine but it doesn't need to be in the millions. Shouldn't be.
Morality is more important than freakish intellect or ability. You want these people to be very comfortable, like upper middle.
This is a filter. Someone who would pass up being a Senator or justice because they want to live in a 12 bedroom house and wear a 500k watch is someone you don't want.
Plus, I tend to doubt this person is actually smarter. Just more complacent and greedy. Like, I don’t think someone who makes Marvel movies is smarter than Scorsese. Justin Bieber isn't better than yoyo ma. Many such cases. You want the Scorsesi of politics
Greed is insatiable. Look at people like Pelosi or Mitch. Endless money. Only a few years left. It never even crosses their mind to stop taking and start giving. Whatever you pay someone like that, they will want more.
Very rich people are also clueless about the reality of normal people, and they need to make policies for normal people.
So this scheme is fine, but they get very comfortable lives and die moderately wealthy, instead of extravagantly, which seemed to work well in the past.
That's fine but it doesn't need to be in the millions. Shouldn't be.
Morality is more important than freakish intellect or ability. You want these people to be very comfortable, like upper middle.
This is a filter. Someone who would pass up being a Senator or justice because they want to live in a 12 bedroom house and wear a 500k watch is someone you don't want.
Plus, I tend to doubt this person is actually smarter. Just more complacent and g
You can't build a strong system basing yourself on "people who will occupy the most important positions will be moral".
Because that's not how human beings work. That's like having a communist system predicated on "leaders will do the good of the people".
You have to think of smart bastards with 0 morals and be fully ready to have them seated in the most important positions and your country has to work well anyway when that inevitably happens.
265k/year is Not very comfortable when everyone you interact with is far better off than you.
When every single lawyer that makes a case in front of you makes a ton more money than you do that is not comfortable. That's feeling you made the wrong choice in life every day you have a hearing.
The 500k watch requires far higher incomes than what I wrote.
Greed might be insatiable in some people but in most it isn't. In most if they are very comfortable they stop if we are talking about risking it all (and we are).
Very comfortable means decently better than the people they interact with routinely on their work day and afterwards. It means a lot better than their median colleague 10 years ago.
Millions aren't much in some circles. We are talking they still will never be able to have a private jet. Never be able to even comprehend what owning an NBA team means.
They have a hard time having full time help 24/7 for the rest of their lives for them and all their children and grandchildren. They won't be able to leave trust funds guaranteeing a rich life for 10+ generations for their bloodlines.
The investigation was supposed to be about a land deal but somehow found a way to ask a married man under oath whether or not he cheated on his wife. That's why no reasonable person took that perjury seriously.
I never understood why anything regarding Monica Lewinsky was brought into that investigation, and I still don't know why.
I never understood why anything regarding Monica Lewinsky was brought into that investigation, and I still don't know why.
afaik it wasn't, the only thing the land deal fraud investigation and the Clinton perjury case had in common was the independent counsel Starr.
Lewinsky came out as a thing because Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment
afaik it wasn't, the only thing the land deal fraud investigation and the Clinton perjury case had in common was the independent counsel Starr.
Lewinsky came out as a thing because Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment
Actually no. Starr already knew about Jones before he was even appointed:
The biggest problem with his appointment, however, was a major conflict of interest: Earlier in the year, Starr had provided legal assistance to Paula Jones, an Arkansas woman who was suing Clinton over a vulgar sexual advance he had allegedly made to her as governor. Starr even drafted an amicus brief supporting Jones. But Starr didn’t disclose those connections to the judges who appointed him, and later he would, against all ethical standards, make common cause with Jones’ team in his pursuit of the president.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...
Starr found out about Lewinsky from his investigators and that had nothing to do with Jones's accusation.
