It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservatives should just admit they do not care...

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd


Actually, I don't define it that way.

I defined "divestment" as "relinquishing control."

I didn't define it as that because I looked up the legal definition.


Being elected to an office should not require one to take a vow of poverty... practically every politician owns houses (many multiple houses) and stocks/bonds. Being elected to a national office does not prevent one from possession of that which they have worked for up to that point.

To some extent, we agree.


if Senator Joe Blow is on a committee that controls foreign aid to Somewhereistan, and all of the officials from Somewhereistan are staying in a hotel chain that Joe owns, instead of other hotels that offer similar rooms cheaper, one could say that Joe is taking advantage of Somewhereistan diplomats. If those diplomats were to stop staying in Joe's hotel and suddenly Joe voted to cut off their aid, it would become pretty obvious that Joe was using his office for profit.


There are other things at play here. For example, Somewhereistan could hide bribes by simply saying that they sent 200 people to stay for three weeks each in the most expensive suites in Joe's Hotel. Or Joe could meet with the people who stay and play at his resort hotel ... as opposed to giving short shrift to people from Occasionistan and Bigistan, who don't stay at his hotels. Or officials from Richistan can easily get meetings with Joe because they bring along their pretty young "secretaries" to stay in Joe's hotel when they visit Joe's hotel. Or they could all order the most expensive wines and dinners every time they stay there.

In other words, there's a million ways to hide influence buying.


But if Joe is offering rooms for the going rate and the diplomats stayed there by their own choice, it is a simple exchange of service for pay... no gift was given, and no emolument occurred. If Somewhereistan diplomats are staying in other hotels and still receiving aid, then there is obviously no conflict.


Staying at Joe's hotel also gives them special access to Joe (who also stays there)... as opposed to people who stay in different hotels.


It all depends on the intention and any requirement to utilize a particular service. I am still waiting for some evidence to come to light that Donald Trump has used his office for profit... so far there has been none. As a matter of fact, he donates his salary back to the Treasury.

Did you see today's news? www.cnbc.com...



The truth is NO previous Presidents have done this. They have all tried to make it look like they did, and the other politicians and the media always told us they did.

They really did sell off assets.


But exactly how, then, did they all retire wealthy after 4 or 8 years?

Because they were all extremely wealthy BEFORE they got into office. And your notion of "retiring wealthy" actually doesn't match. Richard Nixon was down to $500 at one point: en.wikipedia.org...



The Presidential salary is impressive, but not that impressive! What you say, if true, would mean that Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter... all would have left the White House as upper middle class citizens on a fixed income. None of them did. They left as wealthy individuals with tons of resources at their disposal.

They make their money from speaking engagements - here's an estimate of their fees: www.thoughtco.com...

Two commencement addresses per year would keep you in gravy for ... a very long time.


Imagine for one moment if your job required you to give up any and all business interests you owned, your home, your retirement, everything so you could work there for 8 years and make a decent salary. Would you take that? Would anyone?


It's a pathway to a far more lucrative future, including books that are guaranteed best sellers, public speaking engagements, endorsements, requests for (paid) appearances, fees for television appearances, etc, etc. They become celebrities. This fame and fortune follows them the rest of their lives.

But they don't write books WHILE in office although they do collect speaking fees.

And as for donations, Trump's donation of his salary is not unique and is actually fairly minor. Other presidents (Obama, for instance) donated a million dollars to charitable efforts during their presidency. You may recall some of Trump's promised donations that didn't happen. I don't doubt that he donated his salary, but it's actually a trivial amount of money (to billionaires. To us, it's more money than either of us sees in a decade.)


tl;dr: No, presidents aren't "middle class" ... no person from the middle class can actually afford to run for president. They enter wealthy and divest from things that could be problems. After the presidency they make a staggering amount of money from appearance fees and speaking fees. Most former presidents donate a part of their wealth to many charitable causes.




posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


I don't like Trump - it's true. I don't think he's a monster. I do think he's out of his depth. I'll just leave it at that

And I have absolutely no problem with that statement. As a person, I don't like Trump either. I just think he's doing a lot of good, and at this point in time is what the country needs. It's the same thinking I would use if I needed a lawyer to defend myself against a fraudulent charge... I would want the meanest, scariest, most vicious lawyer I could find. Would I like him? No. Would I need him? Yes.

I will even agree that he is out of his element... and add that he shouldn't be. The fact that he is so far out of his element should indicate how seriously screwed up our politics are. Elitists, the lot of 'em.


I don't like what's happening in this country, but it's not going to improve by making it easier for all of us to think less. Pointing a finger at one person and pinning it all on him absolves a lot of people of responsibility

More agreement between us. Where we are is no one person's fault. It is the result of multiple people, from both parties, across decades of time, all working feverishly to weave a web of protection that they thought would serve to insulate them from consequences for their actions. We saw Fast and Furious swept under the rug. We saw the Patriot Act turn us all into suspects and strip us of freedom. We saw an 18-year war against an enemy that didn't even participate in the attack that started it. We saw a slush fund uncovered to prevent our leaders from consequences for the very things they would have us dismembered for.

No, it has been a long, long line of politicians and pundits that led to this.


I don't kid myself into thinking that you see this the same way I do, but I think we're all in real trouble Red, and it's better to talk it out than to not

So - thank you. It's a start

We've had many starts, sir... I pray this one takes hold. Because you are right that we have entered a period where we are at each others' throats for no good reason. That can only lead to disaster, and while I have given up much of my hope that such a disaster can actually be avoided, I'll still grab at every reasonable opportunity to at least delay it.

So thank you as well. And I will point out that, without the suspicion and "snark," we have agreed on all three separate points you made. I will ask one thing of you: the next time you hear of Trump doing something unconscionable, stop, think, look it up, and see if he really did. When I hear of Trump doing anything, I do the same, then make up my own mind. If we all do that, perhaps we can move back toward the center and finally meet again.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


I didn't define it as that because I looked up the legal definition.

Fair enough; I gave my definition because that is what my observations of Trump's actions are based on. When I say he divested, I mean he relinquished direct control of his assets. We are actually discussing the political, not the legal definition, since there is no legal requirement to divest in most cases.


In other words, there's a million ways to hide influence buying.

Yes, there are. but we also live in a society where a person is (supposedly) innocent until proven guilty. If influence buying can be proven, fine. My complaint stems from multiple accusations by those who have already indicated (either by direct statements or other means) that they are biased and untrustworthy, being presumed as guilt. investigations are fine by me, as long as they are not politicized. I do think investigations should be conducted into suspected crimes, not selected individuals.


Did you see today's news?

I don't see what that has to do with this conversation. Plus, I will point out that the judgement has been termed as "excessive under the circumstances," the moneys involved were all provided to their intended recipients, and the judge declined to approve punitive judgements.


They really did sell off assets.

My point was that they didn't sell off all assets. The peanut farm Carter sold was deeply in debt and losing money. it was a political gesture; nothing more.


Because they were all extremely wealthy BEFORE they got into office. And your notion of "retiring wealthy" actually doesn't match. Richard Nixon was down to $500 at one point

No one who has wealth would give up all of their income. If they were willing to do that, they would never have become wealthy. All politicians have not come from wealth either: AOC was certainly not wealthy when she was elected.

Nixon was a special case; he was shamed publicly and had no method to gain income. No one wanted to hear from him.


They make their money from speaking engagements

So it is reasonable to give away literally billions in assets and multiple millions in income to make a few million a year?

That's not what I would term a "lucrative deal."


And as for donations, Trump's donation of his salary is not unique and is actually fairly minor. Other presidents (Obama, for instance) donated a million dollars to charitable efforts during their presidency. You may recall some of Trump's promised donations that didn't happen. I don't doubt that he donated his salary, but it's actually a trivial amount of money (to billionaires. To us, it's more money than either of us sees in a decade.)

I have never heard of a President donating his salary to the Treasury before, so it must be unique. In essence, Donald Trump has worked for the US for the past two, almost three years, for free.

If Obama gave a million bucks to charity during his Presidency, where did he get it? His salary was not that high. He had to be getting additional income from somewhere, which supports my allegation that divesting is only a political gesture. Presidents, like Senators and Representatives, have alternate income sources. Some are legit, and some, I suspect, are not.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

The republican senate will block it... something that is a surprise to no one..
...



Two democrats signed against the resolution the democrats passed, and all Republicans, including the never-Trump Republicans signed against it. That is called bipartisan support against the "impeachment reform."

Not to mention that despite the lies from Schiff, Pelosi et al, this resolution does not give subpoena powers to Republicans, and does not give them any new rights as the democrats wrote, and I quote:



Schiff, Pelosi even wrote for a way for them to keep denying the POTUS, and/or his counsel rights if they dared refuse any requests made by Schiff.



The language they used is so vague that Schiff could ask anything not even related to the Ukraine phone call, and it could even be unconstitutional for Schiff to make such a demand, and still this gives Schiff a way to refuse anything to the POTUS and/or his counsel.

More democrats didn't sign against it because of what the left-wing media has been doing ousting them to their base by giving all their names, and puting their names in the front pages of every left-wing newspaper. Every time the anti-Trump democrats called for a vote, there have even been 100 of the democrats whom voted NO for impeachment at least in one instance because there is no reason for impeachment.

Since the left-wing media has ousted those democrats that voted no to impeachment, you get the "never Trump" in the left calling every one of those democrats, and threatening them if they would not get on with the program of "impeaching the POTUS over lies made up by democrats like Schiff, Pelosi, et al."

But even then two democrats, and all Republicans including the never Trump Republicans, signed against this joke of a "resolution."


originally posted by: JustJohnny
...

I would be shocked if we have seen the last of his close friends be prosecuted..

For the oramge man himself, I think TPTB will be happy to see him slink away in disgrace.


I wouldn't be shocked that democrats will continue to give immunity to pro-democrats, or those whom will jump in the "never Trump bandwagon" helping democrats impeach the POTUS over LIES, for the same crimes committed by people like Cohen and Manafort just like the democrats have been doing...

I haven't seen ANYONE from the left demand that those pro-Clinton/pro-democrats whom were given immunity for crimes should be prosecuted. Instead you all want to ignore that real crimes committed by democrats have been forgiven, and instead you all want to impeach the POTUS over more lies.

Decency, and honesty seems to have been lost for the left in general. Now democrats stand for crime, political persecution, and helping illegals more than helping Americans, our veterans, or even legal residents.




edit on 7-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
I think one of the most ridiculous parts of the trump phenomenon is the mental gymnastics people do to explain away his craziness when the real truth is none of them care if he is guilty.

So why not just be honest about it???

If you think the “leftists” are such a threat that it is worth trump making back room deals with enemy governments to stop them.. just say that...


If you think it is worth trump using military aid to stop them, then just say that...


If you think his lies are worth it because they “piss off the left”.. then just say that..


I personally find that a way more logical argument than the alternative.. well if you buy into the Fox News version of reality at least.

Then you won’t look like a totally silly when you regurgitate they talking points memo trump sends out every morning..

This is not a joke... I do not mean this sarcastically..

It just seems better to be real..





So you hate Fox news because you disagree with their content? Pretty much anyone that doesnt prescribe to your political bias is a liar? You sit their smug and insulated in your glass bubble. Good luck with that



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


More agreement between us.

Yes :-)


Where we are is no one person's fault. It is the result of multiple people, from both parties, across decades of time, all working feverishly to weave a web of protection that they thought would serve to insulate them from consequences for their actions. We saw Fast and Furious swept under the rug. We saw the Patriot Act turn us all into suspects and strip us of freedom. We saw an 18-year war against an enemy that didn't even participate in the attack that started it. We saw a slush fund uncovered to prevent our leaders from consequences for the very things they would have us dismembered for.

No, it has been a long, long line of politicians and pundits that led to this.


Yes - so much yes


So thank you as well. And I will point out that, without the suspicion and "snark," we have agreed on all three separate points you made.

We have. And it's not even a miracle Red - we both just adjusted our attitudes and our approach


I will ask one thing of you: the next time you hear of Trump doing something unconscionable, stop, think, look it up, and see if he really did.

I already do and I always have. This applies to everything - not just Trump

I will say something that won't make me any points probably, but the media could have handled the past 3 years better. That's a long topic. I know a lot of people believe that much of the news is fake. That's a matter of perspective, and that's the problem. The news is more of a commodity now than ever before. Every click means something. It's sold to the American public the way you sell any product, and for the same reasons. There is still excellent journalism out there - but it's not as if it's obvious. I think the polarization in this country would be far less now if the media hadn't been such a complete sea of sh*t for the past few years. I'd like to have faith in people's powers of discernment (on the left and the right) but I've been disappointed daily. Almost hourly


We've had many starts, sir... I pray this one takes hold.

I do too...but still not a sir



edit on 11/9/2019 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


And it's not even a miracle Red - we both just adjusted our attitudes and our approach

That's the key, right there. Unfortunately, that may be a bridge too far for many.



I will say something that won't make me any points probably, but the media could have handled the past 3 years better.

Oh, certainly! I have made the statement many times that I would have never believed the coverage could become so bad that it could actually be quantified... but it has. That is, in my opinion, one of the most horrific and dangerous aspects of today's political climate. He who controls the propaganda controls the people. Just ask North Korea about that.


I do too...but still not a sir

Oops! Sorry... hard to tell sometimes.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join