Miscellaneous Trump (5 Viewers)

[Huntn]

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'​

Anxiety surges as Donald Trump may be indicted soon: Why 2024 is 'the final battle' and 'the big one'

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the 2024 election.

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – It looks like American politics is entering a new age of anxiety, triggered by an unprecedented legal development: The potential indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate.

Donald Trump's many legal problems – and calls for protests by his followers – have generated new fears of political violence and anxiety about the unknowable impact all this will have on the already-tense 2024 presidential election

I’ll reframe this is a more accurate way, Are Presidents above the law? This new age was spurred into existence when home grown dummies elected a corrupt, mentally ill, anti-democratic, would be dictator as President and don’t bother to hold him responsible for his crimes, don’t want to because in the ensuing mayhem and destruction, they think they will be better off. The man is actually advocating violence (not the first time). And btw, screw democracy too. If this feeling spreads, we are In deep shirt.

This goes beyond one treasonous Peice of work and out to all his minions. This is on you or should we be sympathetic to the idea of they can’t help being selfish suckers to the Nation’s detriment? Donald Trump is the single largest individual threat to our democracy and it‘s all going to boil down to will the majority of the GOP return to his embrace and start slinging his excrement to support him?

 

[TampaJoe]

College athletes with NIL deals use their name recognition and talent to sell Gatorade and Nike. What is Barron selling in this scenario? Take your time...

His name. Hence the N in NIL. Selling the Trump brand. Like Hunter was selling the Biden brand.

 

[TampaJoe]

See my post about what is worth enforcing. Why does it matter if Hunter founded a company? Probably every famous person’s child in the country, nay the world, has profited off of their name.

Thomas’ ethics violations are orders of magnitude more important, because his decisions actually impact every American. To compare the two is like comparing the effect of a jay walker to someone driving around the country running people over. That’s why crimes are categorized by severity and punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the offense.

True. PUNISHMENT is commensurate. Enforcement is a different thing. People who embezzle or commit tax evasion are charged and tried. It doesn’t matter in the guilt phase if they stole or embezzled 1 million or 100 million. We don’t ignore the million dollar theft because it is a rounding error on the govt balance sheet. By the way, 100 million is a rounding error on the govt balance sheet.

As long as we debate what is or is not “worth” enforcing, one side or the other or both will continue to look the other way and make excuses.

 

[FullMonte]

Thanks. Just curious, are any of these companies still operating?

But your point is well taken.

Now let me ask you. Did VP Biden influence US policy that affected Burisma and the Ukraine at the same time as his son was a board member of a Ukrainian Company? Don’t think that people could legitimately question whether that association may have affected his decisions or recommendations? Could he have recused himself from those discussions and deliberations in order to avoid such questions.

I can tell you I would lose my license to practice if I had such a conflict and sold myself as independent.

Well, let's ask ourselves what Joe Biden actually did that affected Burisma.

He went over Ukraine, and executed the stated US policy (as well as that or our allies and members of the Ukranian population and parliament) that in order to receive the next round of military aid, the Ukranian government needed to fire their lead prosecutor. Why? Because he was NOT investigating corruption, and was accused of taking bribes from various people.

Among those people was the CEO of Burisma, who was accused of violating the law by granting his company favorable mining leases while he was the equivalent of the US Secretary of the Interior. This happened years before Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma. The chief prosecutor had allowed that investigation to go dormant. Along with that, the UK had sent a request for documentation to the prosecutor related to a money laundering investigation that was being done into the CEO of Burisma. The chief prosecutor ignored the Mutual Assistance Treaty between the two countries, and did not respond to the request.

So, Joe Biden got a man fired who was NOT investigating the CEO of Burisma. Do you think that Burisma put Hunter Biden on the board so that they could use his leverage to force an investigation into the company's leadership for criminal activity in two countries?

 

[Lapaz]

True. PUNISHMENT is commensurate. Enforcement is a different thing. People who embezzle or commit tax evasion are charged and tried. It doesn’t matter in the guilt phase if they stole or embezzled 1 million or 100 million. We don’t ignore the million dollar theft because it is a rounding error on the govt balance sheet. By the way, 100 million is a rounding error on the govt balance sheet.

As long as we debate what is or is not “worth” enforcing, one side or the other or both will continue to look the other way and make excuses.

You can’t ignore the practical matter that zero crime is impossible. All attorney generals have to make practical decisions about what to enforce and all law enforcement agencies have to do the same. The debate will never end, but when one person is the most egregious in history, there shouldn’t be a debate.

 

[TampaJoe]

You can’t ignore the practical matter that zero crime is impossible. All attorney generals have to make practical decisions about what to enforce and all law enforcement agencies have to do the same. The debate will never end, but when one person is the most egregious in history, there shouldn’t be a debate.

I don’t ignore the fact that we can have all the laws we want and still some crime will occur. Similarly, we can set high ethical standards and still some corruption will occur. That in no way suggests that we shouldn’t have laws or standards. That doesn’t suggest that we shouldn’t seek to enforce those laws and standards when we have evidence that suggests those laws and standards have been breached. Because if we do go there and say we are willing to ignore those instances, the law means nothing. The standards mean nothing.

Right now there is no standard. Just excuses.

 

[SFIDC3]

Your point with Thomas is well taken and no it’s not that different.

Not different except for little pesky things like "orders of magnitude more important" and "severity"......this both sides trolling is so blatantly obvious with anyone that has half a brain....

Thomas’ ethics violations are orders of magnitude more important, because his decisions actually impact every American. To compare the two is like comparing the effect of a jay walker to someone driving around the country running people over. That’s why crimes are categorized by severity and punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the offense.

 

[TampaJoe]

Not different except for little pesky things like "orders of magnitude more important" and "severity"......this both sides trolling is so blatantly obvious with anyone that has half a brain....

As is your obvious and blatant hypocrisy.

 

[DaveXA]

As is your obvious and blatant hypocrisy.

Only in your own mind. Well, maybe Sendai as well.

 

[Lapaz]

I don’t ignore the fact that we can have all the laws we want and still some crime will occur. Similarly, we can set high ethical standards and still some corruption will occur. That in no way suggests that we shouldn’t have laws or standards. That doesn’t suggest that we shouldn’t seek to enforce those laws and standards when we have evidence that suggests those laws and standards have been breached. Because if we do go there and say we are willing to ignore those instances, the law means nothing. The standards mean nothing.

Right now there is no standard. Just excuses.

No one is suggesting not setting high standards and ignoring crimes, but when no one in history has ever been charged with a lie on a gun form without aggravating things like use in a crime, that is wrong. One can argue that Trump shouldn’t have been charged by New York due to use of a novel concept to extend the statute of limitations, but Cohen went to prison for being his accomplice. Trump was going to get away with breaking the law, and deserved to go to jail. Hunter’s crime was much less egregious. Even so, it was the only crime that Trump has committed in which you can even remotely claim he was held to a higher standard. In every other case, he has been treated to a lower standard. Now he continuing his lawlessness, and it is disgusting.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Summarizing his befuddlement with numbers, Mark Twain observed that there were “lies, damned lies and statistics”.

The acerbic phrase later become so deeply embedded in popular consciousness that it once formed the title to an episode of The West Wing, NBC’s portrayal of a fictitious US president played by Martin Sheen.

Now professional economists and number-crunchers fear the aphorism could become a White House theme in real life. Buffeted by global markets and public opinion – both of which show a wary skepticism of Donald Trump’s affinity for trade wars – the president may be about to turn his renowned hostility to truths at odds with what he believes towards public servants charged with producing accurate information.


A proposed rule change making it easier to fire civil servants deemed to be “intentionally subverting presidential directives” could pave the way for the White House to fire statisticians employed to produce objective data on the economy but whose figures prove politically inconvenient, experts warn.

Statistics released by agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are used by the Federal Reserve Bank to set inflation policy and interest rates. They also form the basis on which businesses and investors take decisions.

The US’s global reputation as a stable economic power and a reliable partner goes hand-in-hand with its long history of producing accurate data, dating back to the establishment of the BLS in 1884. Interfere with the latter and you risk sacrificing the former, experts warn.

But with Trump under pressure to explain shrinking gross domestic product (GDP) figures amid economists’ warnings that tariffs could trigger a recession, the administration could use new employment rules to pressure workers into “cooking the books”.

“There are a number of changes to the civil service that make it much easier for the administration to try to interfere with the activities of the statistical agencies and that worries me,” said Erica Groshen, a specialist in government statistics at Cornell University.……..

Cooking the books? Fears Trump could target statisticians if data disappoints

Proposed rule change could pave way for president to fire economists whose figures prove politically inconvenient

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lapaz]

Summarizing his befuddlement with numbers, Mark Twain observed that there were “lies, damned lies and statistics”.

The acerbic phrase later become so deeply embedded in popular consciousness that it once formed the title to an episode of The West Wing, NBC’s portrayal of a fictitious US president played by Martin Sheen.

Now professional economists and number-crunchers fear the aphorism could become a White House theme in real life. Buffeted by global markets and public opinion – both of which show a wary skepticism of Donald Trump’s affinity for trade wars – the president may be about to turn his renowned hostility to truths at odds with what he believes towards public servants charged with producing accurate information.


A proposed rule change making it easier to fire civil servants deemed to be “intentionally subverting presidential directives” could pave the way for the White House to fire statisticians employed to produce objective data on the economy but whose figures prove politically inconvenient, experts warn.

Statistics released by agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are used by the Federal Reserve Bank to set inflation policy and interest rates. They also form the basis on which businesses and investors take decisions.

The US’s global reputation as a stable economic power and a reliable partner goes hand-in-hand with its long history of producing accurate data, dating back to the establishment of the BLS in 1884. Interfere with the latter and you risk sacrificing the former, experts warn.

But with Trump under pressure to explain shrinking gross domestic product (GDP) figures amid economists’ warnings that tariffs could trigger a recession, the administration could use new employment rules to pressure workers into “cooking the books”.

“There are a number of changes to the civil service that make it much easier for the administration to try to interfere with the activities of the statistical agencies and that worries me,” said Erica Groshen, a specialist in government statistics at Cornell University.……..

Cooking the books? Fears Trump could target statisticians if data disappoints

Proposed rule change could pave way for president to fire economists whose figures prove politically inconvenient

www.theguardian.com

I’m already skeptical about the numbers the government is producing. The pressure to hide and misrepresent reality, or face retaliation, is going to make it hard to believe anything they say. I expect to be pumped rosy lies like totalitarian countries. The question will be can that be undone after Trump and can protections be put in place to prevent future presidents from cooking the books. It is too important to a Capitalist country.

 

[TampaJoe]

No one is suggesting not setting high standards and ignoring crimes, but when no one in history has ever been charged with a lie on a gun form without aggravating things like use in a crime, that is wrong. One can argue that Trump shouldn’t have been charged by New York due to use of a novel concept to extend the statute of limitations, but Cohen went to prison for being his accomplice. Trump was going to get away with breaking the law, and deserved to go to jail. Hunter’s crime was much less egregious. Even so, it was the only crime that Trump has committed in which you can even remotely claim he was held to a higher standard. In every other case, he has been treated to a lower standard. Now he continuing his lawlessness, and it is disgusting.

It’s all disgusting. People using the law and the courts as political weapons. Corruption. It’s all disgusting.

But without high and clear ethical standards that both parties agree to enforce equally without excuse or evasion, nothing is gonna change. Democrats will circle the wagon and make all kinds of excuses for democrats and republicans will do the same.

I have zero confidence that either party has it in them to do it. So nothing will change. The fastest growing political party in the US is Independents. Is there any wonder why?

 

[Dragon]

It’s all disgusting. People using the law and the courts as political weapons. Corruption. It’s all disgusting.

But without high and clear ethical standards that both parties agree to enforce equally without excuse or evasion, nothing is gonna change. Democrats will circle the wagon and make all kinds of excuses for democrats and republicans will do the same.

I have zero confidence that either party has it in them to do it. So nothing will change. The fastest growing political party in the US is Independents. Is there any wonder why?

Both sides are not the same. You are like a old record stuck at the same place. Which keep saying the same thing over and over again with no proof of your claim. If you can't see the difference between the two then as I wrote earlier - you are not debating honestly.

 

[Incumbent]

Democrats will circle the wagon and make all kinds of excuses for democrats and republicans will do the same.

Oh? Al Franken would like to hear more. A years old comedy bit got him run out of the Senate. Meanwhile…Trump, ya know.

They can bury Bob Menendez under a prison as far as I think most Democrats are concerned.

I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong but I really don’t think the Republicans have an ethical standard, at all, anymore. Which has put our country in a very perilous place.

 

[Optimus Prime]

It’s all disgusting. People using the law and the courts as political weapons. Corruption. It’s all disgusting.

But without high and clear ethical standards that both parties agree to enforce equally without excuse or evasion, nothing is gonna change. Democrats will circle the wagon and make all kinds of excuses for democrats and republicans will do the same.

I have zero confidence that either party has it in them to do it. So nothing will change. The fastest growing political party in the US is Independents. Is there any wonder why?

Both sides!

 

[TampaJoe]

Both sides are not the same. You are like an old record stuck at the same place. Which keep saying the same thing over and over again with no proof of your claim. If you can't see the difference between the two then as I wrote earlier - you are not debating honestly.

You are like the old record. You aren’t interested in the problem. You only want to treat the symptoms and you want to pick and choose amongst those.

You can’t or won’t set a standard that you would apply uniformly without exception. You want to fall back on this whole notion that corruption is somehow acceptable below a certain degree of severity. And you can’t or won’t say what that is. Until you do, neither party is going to trust the other party to do the right thing when the time counts. So you can whine all you want about how bad the US is in this regard and you may be right. But you have no answers that any first year law student couldn’t work around in 30 minutes.

You can’t see the difference. Neither party is doing so well in the trust department. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. The both lie. They both equivocate and make excuses. All any honest impartial person has to do is step back and watch.

 

[TampaJoe]

Both sides!

Exactly.

 

[Optimus Prime]

You can’t see the difference. Neither party is doing so well in the trust department. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. The both lie. They both equivocate and make excuses. All any honest impartial person has to do is step back and watch.

More both sides again!