The Crook-In-Chief

[metis]

It generally is redundant to attempt convince someone that such lawsuits are commonplace among billion dollar businesses. Business owners are liable for things their employees are doing wrong, so when it comes time to pay (lawsuits) they have to. It doesn't indicate ANYTHING on Trump's part, because his operation is just too large to micro-manage - much of it falls on subordinates, but why put any logic to it?

That's actually not entirely true. If a lawsuit was lodged against any of his holdings, undoubtedly he would of become aware of that, and he would have the opportunity to correct it. The fact that, at least in many cases, he didn't do as such and was fined indicates that he well knew what was happening.

He has long had this reputation of not paying subcontractors or refusing to pay the full amount that was contracted long before he ran for the presidency this time. Former Republican representative Joe Scarborough, who is a friend with the Trumps, mentioned this maybe about two weeks or so ago on "Morning Joe", and some others chimed in agreement.

 

[metis]

So if people want you to think Trump is a womanizer,

a tax evader,

He has admitted both publicly.

 

[Kenny]

Then I'm glad we're on the same page.

There have been roughly 10 investigations with no wrongdoing being evident. And if lying is important to you, and I know that it is, do you honestly think that she has lied more the Trump, who even Graham and Jindal have called a "pathological liar"-- their words, not mine. Also, he constantly contradicts himself, and how much of that is ignorance and how much is lying I simply cannot say.

I just wanted to address this issue as I believe it is the problem and I believe this is exactly what will happen in pretty much every case...

Political power, collusion between Presidential power and DOJ (who is placed their by the same powers). I didn't expect there to be any charges because of the very fact that they are placed there by those of the same mind and same heart.

Doesn't that end up being just like what is happening now? If you like the President, there is nothing they do that can be wrong.

Hillary said she knew that Benghazi was a planned terrorist act but then publicly accused a man who made a video who had his life completely altered by the same. I call that the greatest of abuse of power that should have been addressed by the Dept. of Justice. (Knowingly in falsely accusing an innocent man). However, I had no expectation that this would be addressed because of the relationship between the DoJ and DoState.

All other examples will pretty much be the same. We may differ on how we view it but....

Do you really believe that Hillary was just a saint that never used her position for self gain or lied using her power to get a get-out-of-wrongdoing card? If you do, they we will respectfully and still with out internet friendship intact agree to disagree knowing that we still agree on the principle.

 

[tytlyf]

Hillary said she knew that Benghazi was a planned terrorist act but then publicly accused a man who made a video who had his life completely altered by the same. I call that the greatest of abuse of power that should have been addressed by the Dept. of Justice. (Knowingly in falsely accusing an innocent man). However, I had no expectation that this would be addressed because of the relationship between the DoJ and DoState.

The video was related to multiple attacks across multiple countries that same day. The person who made the video was not arrested on anything related to the video.
Where do you get your information from?

 

[metis]

then publicly accused a man who made a video who had his life completely altered by the same.

That is not only what she thought caused the attack but some others that were involved as well. IOW, it was not clear what the prime motivation for the attack was at first.

However, where she erred, imo, and I did hold it against her, is that she continued to push that concept for quite a while after it became clear that the video at most was a minor contributor and maybe not a contributor at all.

Do you really believe that Hillary was just a saint that never used her position for self gain or lied using her power to get a get-out-of-wrongdoing card?

I already said that I didn't support her and planned to vote 3rd party (Stein), but when I realized that this could be close, I switched because I definitely felt that Trump was so much a morally and truth-challenged person that we should never elect to any office, let alone the presidency. The stuff he said and did was so opposite Jesus' teachings, for example.

BTW, if Hillary acted like Trump I would never would have voted for her, and I think you know that.

If you do, they we will respectfully and still with out internet friendship intact agree to disagree knowing that we still agree on the principle.

Hey, you'll always be my friend as far as I'm concerned, so vaya con Dios.

 

[Kenny]

The video was related to multiple attacks across multiple countries that same day. The person who made the video was not arrested on anything related to the video.
Where do you get your information from?

I'm not sure where you were doing that time.

Here flip flopping of the story line is proof enough.

As a disclaimer... it is ONLY the first part that I am addressing. Not the rest of this video. (I just found it as there is a plethora of informational videos available.

It is the factual statements by Hillary that I am addressing and not the opinion of the producer of this video.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm not sure where you were doing that time.

Here flip flopping of the story line is proof enough.

As a disclaimer... it is ONLY the first part that I am addressing. Not the rest of this video. (I just found it as there is a plethora of informational videos available.

It is the factual statements by Hillary that I am addressing and not the opinion of the producer of this video.

? Hillary said the video was related, multiple people stated the same thing. There was no 'stand down order,' there was no wrong doing. Benghazi was a republican manufactured scandal.

The creator of the video was not imprisoned due to the video. Clinton did not lie to the mother of one of the fallen Amerians.

 

[Kenny]

? Hillary said the video was related, multiple people stated the same thing. There was no 'stand down order,' there was no wrong doing. Benghazi was a republican manufactured scandal.

The creator of the video was not imprisoned due to the video. Clinton did not lie to the mother of one of the fallen Amerians.

I don't agree but respect your right to believe differently

 

[Nakosis]

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?

I'll try to answer from my perspective. I didn't vote for Trump but I consider myself a conservative.

There is a lot of corruption on capital hill. It's not one party doing any more than the other. It's systemic IMO.

My hope is that Trump would not be susceptible to the same corruption that is rampant in our federal government.

I don't know that I can say of any politician that they are not dishonest. So saying a politician is dishonest is kind of redundant.

Sure, I'd rather an honest person to be president, I just don't believe that is ever going to happen.

I really didn't expect honesty. So folks pointing out Trump is dishonest? Yes, ok, what's your point? Do you think Hillary or any of the other candidates would have been more honest?

Expecting folks to get upset about a dishonest politician is like expecting people to get upset by pointing out the sky is blue.

So that out of the way, more important, what has he done. What has Trump done that I like... His trip to the middle east I suppose. There's also things that Trump has done that I didn't like. Like his attack of Syria.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

If it's proven sure. I don't think we're there yet. Also I suspect republicans would be saying the same thing about Hillary if she had won.

 

[Nakosis]

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

All foes ARE Hitler...

 

[metis]

I really didn't expect honesty. So folks pointing out Trump is dishonest? Yes, ok, what's your point? Do you think Hillary or any of the other candidates would have been more honest?

Well, comparatively speaking and as far as we know, yes.

All politicians simply are not the same, nor do I believe that all of them are on the "take". Many, maybe even most, possibly-- but I don't know. But whether it be Trump, Clinton, or myself, dishonesty is dishonesty and I don't think we should be excusing or ignoring it. These series of investigations have a very long way to go yet, and I am simply not going to assume what the results may be. However, this unknowing doesn't change what we have seen of Trump thus far.

Expecting folks to get upset about a dishonest politician is like expecting people to get upset by pointing out the sky is blue.

I don't accept that premise, but it also may relate to how one may use the word "dishonest". I don't assume any politician is likely to be put forth for sainthood, but neither do I assume that they all are basically dishonest.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't accept that premise, but it also may relate to how one may use the word "dishonest". I don't assume any politician is likely to be put forth for sainthood, but neither do I assume that they all are basically dishonest.

Which is probably why you don't understand the non-reaction.

You still have an idealism about politics which I've lost. Maybe a lot of other folks have lost as well.

 

[metis]

Which is probably why you don't understand the non-reaction.

You still have an idealism about politics which I've lost. Maybe a lot of other folks have lost as well.

No, I would suggest that I very much have a largely realistic approach since this was a large part of my profession for 25 or so years. We've had many excellent leaders over the years, many poor ones, and many more in-between. That, to me, is realistic; so stereotyping politicians, to me, isn't.

 

[Nakosis]

No, I would suggest that I very much have a largely realistic approach since this was a large part of my profession for 25 or so years. We've had many excellent leaders over the years, many poor ones, and many more in-between. That, to me, is realistic; so stereotyping politicians, to me, isn't.

So do you believe Hillary was an honest politician?

 

[metis]

So do you believe Hillary was an honest politician?

Semi, which is one of the reasons why I planned on not voting for her. But as compared to Trump, she's a saint, and this is not based on speculation.

Anyhow, ...

 

[Nakosis]

Semi, which is one of the reasons why I planned on not voting for her. But as compared to Trump, she's a saint, and this is not based on speculation.

Anyhow, ...

I didn't see her as any better. Since these were the only two real options, I didn't see honesty as being a factor in the presidential race.

 

[tytlyf]

I don't agree but respect your right to believe differently

What part don't you agree with?

 

[metis]

I didn't see her as any better. Since these were the only two real options, I didn't see honesty as being a factor in the presidential race.

I think you're seeing only what you want to see as Hillary's and the Donald's records are quite different. For example, how many times has Hillary been fined and also successfully sued? the Donald?

What I do believe I'm seeing with some here is their using these false equivalencies to justify their voting for Trump instead of being straight forward and admitting that their main reason is that they really bought into Trump and/or that they just plainly didn't like Hillary for whatever reason, and they could then cite those reasons.

Therefore, to me, the "all politicians are corrupt" approach is just a smokescreen. If it weren't, then they wouldn't be voting or supporting any candidate. And if ones comes back with that they voted for "the lesser of the two evils", then they're heavy into "circular reasoning" that violates the stereotype they've created for themselves in the first place.

 

[Nakosis]

I think you're seeing only what you want to see as Hillary's and the Donald's records are quite different. For example, how many times has Hillary been fined and also successfully sued? the Donald?

False equivalency, how long has Hillary been in the real estate business or any public sector job for that matter.

What I do believe I'm seeing with some here is their using these false equivalencies to justify their voting for Trump instead of being straight forward and admitting that their main reason is that they really bought into Trump and/or that they just plainly didn't like Hillary for whatever reason, and they could then cite those reasons.

Fair enough, the main reason I didn't like Hillary is the slave camp the Clintons created in Haiti. Second is their use of the Clinton foundation to profit from Hillary's position as Secretary of State.

Therefore, to me, the "all politicians are corrupt" approach is just a smokescreen. If it weren't, then they wouldn't be voting or supporting any candidate. And if ones comes back with that they voted for "the lesser of the two evils", then they're heavy into "circular reasoning" that violates the stereotype they've created for themselves in the first place.

You have a good point. I didn't vote for or support either candidate. However I think the current system favors corruption. Also by nature humans are motivated for the most part by self interest. I don't think anyone could get to the level of the president without having to play the political game with involves corruption. In this case it's more the nature of the system than the nature of the candidate.