The Crook-In-Chief

[Nakosis]

And here's what also bothers me, namely why do we not give prison time to business owners who knowingly violate the law?

Probably because we are more of a plutocracy than a democracy.

You're left to pick between whichever leadership you deem less evil. Whichever you do end up voting for, you're probably going to be wrong. You basically need to be rich or support by the rich to win an election. Since business owners are generally more wealthy, that's who the laws are going to cater to, IMO.

I personally think the whole two party system is just a show to keep the masses distracted. There's no reason for the rich to care about the poor. There is a reason for the rich to create a perception of caring for the poor. You as a voter don't matter really. You as a campaign contributor matter a great deal.

The owner of my company has a pocket state assemblyman. That's just the way it is.

 

[Augustus]

It can be even worse than mere paying of a fine.
Sometimes the taxpayers end up owning the bank, eg, RBS.

Oddly, once government takes'm over, they continue some bad behavior, eg, RBS.

Then the government pays a fine to itself using your money.

 

[Kenny]

There's all too often a double standard in our country when the wealthy get caught versus the rest of us, and how many CEO's and business owners do we actually see going to prison for defrauding others? Very few, and yet the FBI in the past at least, theorized that there's around four rimes more money defrauded in white-collar crime versus blue-collar crime each year.

I would agree with this statement. Yet, the alternative, IMO, was catastrophic as she should have been in prison multiple times already.

But....

If my people,who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray!!

Our greatest recourse!!

There is, however IMO, some good going on:

Sessions said the money should, instead, go to the Treasury Department or victims.

“When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people—not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” Sessions said in a statement.

DOJ ends Holder-era ‘slush fund’ payouts to outside groups

 

[tytlyf]

Depends, did Trump do these things or not? If he did, it's good to know. But we knew he stiffs people prior to the election. He's not a very good businessman.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, I do believe that being well informed probably never crossed your mind as a possible motive for all those threads since being well informed does not seem important to you.

Assuming the posters are well informed, or are they just repeating a biased view from some media source?

I understand they are repeating information from a "source". Is that source biased? Probably, in my experience. That's not just trying to criticize one particular side.

There are dozens of sources with, I don't really know how much reliability any of them have. When I go to check that, there are sources of various reliability right? I mean the checking of sources seems an endless endeavor.

So what are we informed about? We're informed about what some media source reports. Trust it or not, I guess you get to choose.

I try to objectively verify what sources say. Maybe you feel good about their veracity. I can't.

So yes I'm guilty of seeing the forums as more a source of entertainment, and perhaps like Revoltingest think it's a mistake to assume someone becomes well informed by reading posts on the forums. Informed yes, with a grain of salt. Well informed, I kind of hope there's a bit more skepticism among both both posters and readers.

Also wanted to really point out that I could probably find sources to attack any politician of any persuasion. I just don't see any point to doing so. I don't expect to convince a non-supporter to become a supporter of vice versa. I'd mostly be feeling better about my opinion seeing others who already agree with me supporting the post.
Yea!

 

[Revoltingest]

Assuming the posters are well informed, or are they just repeating a biased view from some media source?

I understand they are repeating information from a "source". Is that source biased? Probably, in my experience. That's not just trying to criticize one particular side.

There are dozens of sources with, I don't really know how much reliability any of them have. When I go to check that, there are sources of various reliability right? I mean the checking of sources seems an endless endeavor.

So what are we informed about? We're informed about what some media source reports. Trust it or not, I guess you get to choose.

I try to objectively verify what sources say. Maybe you feel good about their veracity. I can't.

So yes I'm guilty of seeing the forums as more a source of entertainment, and perhaps like Revoltingest think it's a mistake to assume someone becomes well informed by reading post on the forums. Informed yes, with a grain of salt. Well informed, I kind of hope there's a bit more skepticism among both both posters and readers.

The OP's info is not new. As always, there might be some details to quibble over,
but I see no dispute that he used unethical (IMO) & arguably illegal tactics.
Many who voted for or against knew of this, & had to weigh it against other factors
involving both candidates. The continual re-visiting doesn't change the information,
the election results, or his authority.

 

[Nakosis]

The OP's info is not new. As always, there might be some details to quibble over,
but I see no dispute that he used unethical (IMO) & arguably illegal tactics.
Many who voted for or against knew of this, & had to weigh it against other factors
involving both candidates.

The continual re-visiting doesn't change the information,
the election results, or his authority.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it's something for the courts to settle. There are other views for the reasons for his actions. The example that comes to mind is some folks didn't complete the job or didn't complete it properly. So he refused to pay them and they have to let the courts decide.

I don't know he truth of that. I don't expect we will be discovering the truth of any of it relying on media sources.

I also assume at that level of politics or business anyone is going to have skeletons. We'll probably never know the true character of Trump.

The continual re-visiting doesn't change the information, the election results, or his authority.

Sure, time to move on except for the sake of entertainment.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose it's something for the courts to settle. There are other views for the reasons for his actions. The example that comes to mind is some folks didn't complete the job or didn't complete it properly. So he refused to pay them and they have to let the courts decide.
I don't know he truth of that. I don't expect we will be discovering the truth of any of it relying on media sources.
I also assume at that level of politics or business anyone is going to have skeletons. We'll probably never know the true character of Trump.

Still, the stories I've read of his not paying contractors ring with too much truth.
As an aside, this points to a severe problem with using the courts to collect
debts. Dishonest people take advantage of that when stiffing vendors.

 

[fantome profane]

It must really frost your flakes knowing that whatever you think about Trump, whatever you say about Trump, no matter how loud you shout your hatred of Trump you can't do one blessed thing about Trump. He will be the President of the United States for the next four years at least. Sorry.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Lyndon]

The continual re-visiting doesn't change the information,
the election results, or his authority.

I suppose it's something for the courts to settle. There are other views for the reasons for his actions. The example that comes to mind is some folks didn't complete the job or didn't complete it properly. So he refused to pay them and they have to let the courts decide.

I don't know he truth of that. I don't expect we will be discovering the truth of any of it relying on media sources.

I also assume at that level of politics or business anyone is going to have skeletons. We'll probably never know the true character of Trump.



Sure, time to move on except for the sake of entertainment.

Unfortunately, Trump's true character, or rather lack thereof, is painfully obvious to all but the blind.

 

[Nakosis]

Still, the stories I've read of his not paying contractors ring with too much truth.
As an aside, this points to a severe problem with using the courts to collect
debts. Dishonest people take advantage of that when stiffing vendors.

Certainly my company does, and most others we deal with. Business owners take advantage of the system that's in place. It seems an acceptable practice in business.

It's totally up to you to protect yourself against dishonestly in business. Except in the case of blatant fraud. My business has a team of lawyers to make sure that we don't do anything that can be perceived as fraud. Short of that, buyer beware.

 

[Kenny]

And what is in YOUR closet!

 

[metis]

It must really frost your flakes knowing that whatever you think about Trump, whatever you say about Trump, no matter how loud you shout your hatred of Trump you can't do one blessed thing about Trump. He will be the President of the United States for the next four years at least. Sorry.

I wouldn't be betting your house on that if I was you, plus I would think anyone who has a problem with serious and maybe even treasonous crimes would not be supporting Trump.

 

[metis]

I know. It's fun to watch them squirm.

For some reason I don't find dishonesty to be "fun".

 

[Nakosis]

Unfortunately, Trump's true character, or rather lack thereof, is painfully obvious to all but the blind.

Depends on what media source you use/find reliable. Since I find reasons to distrust them all, I still question the apparently obvious.

 

[metis]

Hillary is a lawyer. Hire her.

I don't need one, but Trump hired a new one about two weeks or so ago.

 

[Nakosis]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

Sure, criticize the actions he takes as POTUS.

 

[metis]

Being well informed about the president seems to be a liberal goal that's largely incomprehensible to you conservatives, since you see it as so useless.

Yes, I do believe that being well informed probably never crossed your mind as a possible motive for all those threads since being well informed does not seem important to you.

And this is what I find very disturbing, namely that now that it is well established that Trump has repeatedly violated the law, continues to thumb his nose at the bipartisan investigation that's taking place, and actually encouraged Russian hacking into our electoral system, and yet some people still defend him.

Why would an honest person defend such dishonesty? And I am not referring to allegations that have been made-- just the facts.

The election is over, so what this thread is about is what the information about Trump's character is about now that he is president. You understand the gravity of this rather serious problem, but there are some here who seem hell-bent on ignoring dishonesty, which does beg some questions about why the blatant dishonesty of our president doesn't bother them?

 

[Lyndon]

Some people don't have the honesty to see their own bias on the subject, I imagine Hitler had a lot of defenders too, even though he was completely indefensible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people don't have the honesty to see their own bias on the subject, I imagine Hitler had a lot of defenders too, even though he was completely indefensible.

Confusing Trump with Hitler is another bias related problem.
People get so wrapped up in hatred that all foes look the same.

I notice that some lament defense of Trump, as though everything
they accuse him of were legit. But it seems that what they see as
defense is simlply a refusal to jump on the hatred wagon, accepting
every hyperbole as fact.