Trump administration Cancelled Ethics training for new staff

If they have not learned to be ethical by now, they never will

There are a lot of issues and laws regarding this that most people aren't aware of so without the training you could be breaking laws without even knowing it. Not that Trump or any of his worshippers would care about that.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Another news alert...Trump never was in politics until he became President.

Trump ran for President many times before actually winning.

He was a businessman who used the laws Hillary and Bill and whomever else passed to get rich.

He openly admitted to buying lobbyist to get what he wanted but was never in politics? I don't think you really understand politics.

These Trump threads are getting dumber by the day. It's like a last gasp for air before the dem ship sinks...

More like the Trumpbots are finally running out of excuses for herr leader.

originally posted by: CB328
Wow, Tump cancelling ethics training for his staff. Maybe that's because he doesn't believe in ethics, just in being loud and obnoxious and "doing deals"?
Too bad it's we the people who will suffer from his swamp filling administration.

thehill.com...

Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not automatically have an ethics deficit...Foolish to waste money on a program that's not needed...

originally posted by: CB328
Wow, Tump cancelling ethics training for his staff. Maybe that's because he doesn't believe in ethics, just in being loud and obnoxious and "doing deals"?
Too bad it's we the people who will suffer from his swamp filling administration.

thehill.com...

Obama never believed in ethics either. I suppose something good rubbed off on Trump from Obama wouldn't you say?

Or don't you like a lack of ethics now that it is in Trump's corner?

Like the above poster above mentioned, republicans don't have as great a need for ethics training as the DNC has so very well shown everyone.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: CB328

Can't violate Ethic's Laws if you never had ethic's training.

Trump logic.

As a lawyer Ethics would have been part of Hilary Clinton's training. It didn't help her stay honest.

Yep, it just taught her how to skirt the ethics.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Trump supporter 101: When defending Trump immediately deflect to Hillary Clinton. That's why you're a hack.

News ALERT! Hillary is not in politics.

Here is an alert for you. As I am not a US citizen I cannot support a presidential candidate of any party. A cursory internet search will inform you that Hillary Clinton is still a member of the DNC and is currently in talks with party leaders regarding what future role she can undertake in the party.

Your assumptions are as asinine as they are inaccurate.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I am currently a government employee and I spend as much time being trained on how not to offend people as I do on training for my actual role. It is a shameful waste of taxpayers money because I am civilised person who does not need to be trained how to act as a responsible adult, because, like my colleagues, I am one.

Although you are a responsible government employee, it would seem that not everyone got the memo. This is not a single case - rather, it's something we see as a pattern. For instance, Carl Icahn seems to be unclear on where the lines are drawn as well. And then there's Kellyanne Conway.

The Trump transition team was repeatedly warned about ethics violations and potential problems, which they ignored.

Frankly, I think they all need to sit down and quit looking to Trump for their definitions and start learning about these rules that were put into place as the result of centuries of abuse.

I would not argue with that but I would add that politicians of all stripe and nationality have been found wanting in terms of ethics.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
It's from the hill and its anti-Trump! Well I never.

Is it true or is it not!?

Trump administration Cancelled Ethics training for new staff

Okay, so now all of them start off on the same foot...
No Light allowed in that devolved darkness!

I cannot tell you if it is true or not. My comment is an allusion to the FACT that The Hill was founded by a Democrat and is funded by democrats and their supporters. This particular media outlet exists solely to publish bias.

a reply to: Iscool

So it's foolish to spend what probably amounts to a few thousand dollars but it's absolutely imperative that Trump spends $3+ million almost every week to fly to Mar-A-Lago?

originally posted by: CB328
Wow, Tump cancelling ethics training for his staff. Maybe that's because he doesn't believe in ethics, just in being loud and obnoxious and "doing deals"?
Too bad it's we the people who will suffer from his swamp filling administration.

thehill.com...

Maybe because it's a monumental waste of time and money. You actually think the members of congress actually learn ethics from that stupid class? The last time I checked the people in congress were still starting wars for profit and passing laws that benefited the corporations and that's even after they took that worthless class.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I cannot tell you if it is true or not. My comment is an allusion to the FACT that The Hill was founded by a Democrat and is funded by democrats and their supporters. This particular media outlet exists solely to publish bias.

The hill alongside politico, reuters, and CNN are the most cited sources on both sides of the aisle.

Just because you don't agree with what they write doesn't mean it's false. Instead it says that you just want the media to tell you what you want to hear.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I cannot tell you if it is true or not. My comment is an allusion to the FACT that The Hill was founded by a Democrat and is funded by democrats and their supporters. This particular media outlet exists solely to publish bias.

The hill alongside politico, reuters, and CNN are the most cited sources on both sides of the aisle.

Just because you don't agree with what they write doesn't mean it's false. Instead it says that you just want the media to tell you what you want to hear.

I never claimed it was false. I pointed out who the founders and funders of the cited source are. It was me that accidentally starred your post by the way.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

That's fine, I don't care about stars.

The main point was that your ridicule of the hill is poorly placed. They're one of the most factual sources out there today, cited highly by both the left and the right. If you can't accept them, then you're looking for confirmation bias rather than truth in media.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CulturalResilience

That's fine, I don't care about stars.

The main point was that your ridicule of the hill is poorly placed. They're one of the most factual sources out there today, cited highly by both the left and the right. If you can't accept them, then you're looking for confirmation bias rather than truth in media.

It was not ridicule it was a statement of a fact.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
It's from the hill and its anti-Trump! Well I never.

Is it true or is it not!?

Trump administration Cancelled Ethics training for new staff

Okay, so now all of them start off on the same foot...
No Light allowed in that devolved darkness!

I cannot tell you if it is true or not. My comment is an allusion to the FACT that The Hill was founded by a Democrat and is funded by democrats and their supporters. This particular media outlet exists solely to publish bias.

As far as 'true' goes, it is my experience that everything is 'truth'!
To appreciate that 'obvious trueness' all we need do is to share that Perspective.

As far as human psychology goes, we are all 'bias' about that which 'interests' us, that which makes our heart beat a bit faster... it is about 'emotion' and emotional 'needs'.
Fortunately, we have developed means to critically examine the words/ideas spoken/offered, regardless of the mouth that spoke them.
Often, taking that 'mouth' into consideration is a cheap and mindless way to disregard someone (I hardly need to read Mein Kampf to understand which way Hitler was biased, so I needn't waste time listening to his further ideas on the subject), or to 'accept' someone as; they agree with my bias, they must be 'right'!

The thing about 'true' is that there are always "equal and opposite Perspectives", equally 'valid' (though not necessarily in the same set of limitations).
No matter how much we support our bias, the opposite can as well be supported!

Otherwise, we can evaluate the words.
Personally, knowing what Breitbart is about, I needn't waste my time with something with so little (as I see it) credibility.
And it's use as a 'reference' tells me much about the referrer.
Might I be missing something of import (in the eye/thoughts of the beholder) in my broad dismissal of Breitbart due to the nature of it's components?
Perhaps, but A) I doubt it, and
B) All Knowledge, ever, is on a need to Know basis!
If we do not experience/Know, we didn't need to! *__-

Reading the news as 'entertainment' (which, from certain Perspectives, it certainly is) bypasses, completely, the need to discern fiction from... another kind of fiction.
We assume all is fiction (and it is!), and...

"Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie *__-

a reply to: Flatfish

Yes, he is counting on it..lack of ethics and morals..he said he could shoot a man on the street and still have all his adoring fans.
I wonder if the weapons sale to Saudi Arabia is ethical?