Both sides are not the same

UglyCasanova · Jan 6, 2019

Jhhnn said:
Well, you just covered Trumpism while trying to bothsides it.

It is both sides which I thought was the topic of the thread. We knew about Bill getting a 500k payment from a Kremlin linked bank for giving a speech around the same time Hillary was involved in a uranium deal that benefited Russia. That’s one of many payments received for 30 min speeches. That certainly raises eyebrows and questions on the ethics of elected officials or candidates accepting large sums of essentially gimme money. Is there some sort of contract she’s beholden to for the payers once elected? No, but it would be incredibly naive to thing the companies/countries are paying those large sums of money because their speech is just so captivating, and equally naive to think that she accepts the money and says thanks and forgets their "generosity" either.

Openness is a wonderful thing, but like I mentioned above I question at the end of the day whether it really matters. We knew who paid Clinton (or her LLC the payments went to) and it didn’t matter, I doubt Trump would be any different. Yes, both sides.

Jhhnn · Jan 6, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
It is both sides which I thought was the topic of the thread. We knew about Bill getting a 500k payment from a Kremlin linked bank for giving a speech around the same time Hillary was involved in a uranium deal that benefited Russia. That’s one of many payments received for 30 min speeches. That certainly raises eyebrows and questions on the ethics of elected officials or candidates accepting large sums of essentially gimme money. Is there some sort of contract she’s beholden to for the payers once elected? No, but it would be incredibly naive to thing the companies/countries are paying those large sums of money because their speech is just so captivating, and equally naive to think that she accepts the money and says thanks and forgets their "generosity" either.

Openness is a wonderful thing, but like I mentioned above I question at the end of the day whether it really matters. We knew who paid Clinton (or her LLC the payments went to) and it didn’t matter, I doubt Trump would be any different. Yes, both sides.

More innuendo & disproved talking points. Hillary's State dept was one of 9 agencies that approved the Uranium One deal, along with the govt of Canada & the S African stock exchange. There's absolutely no proof that she personally had anything to do with it. You already know this yet lie about it anyway.

Speaker fees are one of the purest forms of the free market. When you buy a speech, it's what you get along with a little face time. Here's who supposedly bought off Hillary-

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...d-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees

It seems unlikely that she even remembers them all. It's not like she's somehow alone, either-

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&q=highest+speaker+fees

UglyCasanova · Jan 7, 2019

Should the husband of the Secretary of State be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from an entity tied to the Kremlin ever, much less when she is tied to a deal they want to push through. What’s the use of releasing tax returns and knowing who is paying our politicians when we excuse their ethically dubious transactions with it just being "the purest form of capitalism"?

Should Trump be even entertaining the thought of a Moscow tower deal when he’s running for office? No. No way, no how. Even if muh capitalism it puts him in a position that can even be construed as ethically wrong (and it is wrong), Hillary doesn’t get a pass either.

So why care about releasing the tax returns if you don’t honestly care what they contain.

ivwshane · Jan 7, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
Should the husband of the Secretary of State be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from an entity tied to the Kremlin ever, much less when she is tied to a deal they want to push through. What’s the use of releasing tax returns and knowing who is paying our politicians when we excuse their ethically dubious transactions with it just being "the purest form of capitalism"?

Should Trump be even entertaining the thought of a Moscow tower deal when he’s running for office? No. No way, no how. Even if muh capitalism it puts him in a position that can even be construed as ethically wrong (and it is wrong), Hillary doesn’t get a pass either.

So why care about releasing the tax returns if you don’t honestly care what they contain.

God damn you are dumb ass parrot.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

UglyCasanova · Jan 7, 2019

ivwshane said:
God damn you are dumb ass parrot.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

So to confirm, you think it is morally and ethically fine for an acting Secretary of State to accept payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars from an entity tied to the Kremlin while at the same time being on a committee (much less being the damned head of the State Dept) that is charged with approving a sensitive uranium deal for Russia? That passes muster to you?

What about all of the other entities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for 30 min speeches. $153 million because people just really really want to hear what they have to say.

ivwshane · Jan 7, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
So to confirm, you think it is morally and ethically fine for an acting Secretary of State to accept payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars from an entity tied to the Kremlin while at the same time being on a committee (much less being the damned head of the State Dept) that is charged with approving a sensitive uranium deal for Russia? That passes muster to you?

What about all of the other entities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for 30 min speeches. $153 million because people just really really want to hear what they have to say.

Fuck off troll.

UglyCasanova · Jan 7, 2019

How in the world is that trolling. Legit question, do you think her accepting those payments is morally and ethically fine?

ivwshane · Jan 7, 2019

ivwshane said:
Fuck off troll.

Nt

UglyCasanova · Jan 7, 2019

Ok you seem to be very reluctant to answer with anything other than swearing/name calling so I think it’s safe to say that yes, you agree that it’s morally and ethically wrong for her to accept those payments. It seems you agree our Secretary of State shouldn’t be accepting payments from entity’s linked to foreign governments while simultaneously not only being in charge of the foreign diplomacy arm of the government but acting on a committee tasked with the approval of a sensitive deal to that same foreign government. And it seems you also find it very ethically challenged for a SoS and presidential candidate to have accepted $153 million to give 30 minute speeches, and that flow of money could potentially taint her judgement or at the very least give the perception of doing so.

And it seems it really, really pains you to admit it. And to answer the question posed in the thread title, yes it appears at the end of the day both sides are the same. Politicians love power and money and will do very dubious things to get it.

sportage · Jan 7, 2019

HOUSTON... WE "STILL" HAVE A PROBLEM....
Democrats having better ideas and better middle-class friendly ideas all sounds great on paper, but in reality seldom comes down to actual law.
Remember, democrats too once controlled EVERYTHING.
The presidency, the house, AND the senate.
Yet it was not the republicans that screwed up democrats healthcare pipe dream, it was in fact THE DEMOCRATS.
Remember those so called BLUE DOG democrats? Refusing to go along unless handed their "perks"?
Insisting the original intentions of ACA become so watered down that true HEALTHCARE REFORM was hardly that in the end.
And remember back then when Nancy Pelosi herself promised AND predicted an "universal" healthcare option in that ACA bill.
Well, THAT never happened either.
WTF Nancy?

So now, the newly elected democrats have put forth a wide reaching pro middle class bill and set of bills.
Will any of it actually become law?
And.... even if democrats retook the presidency AND the senate come 2020, would any of their pipe dream middle class legislation ever come to be?
Going by history, I very seriously doubt that.

We have a system on both sides controlled by the good ole boys.
Nothing gets done without the blessing of Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley.
Then on the other side of the isle, old fart democrats also have the same choke hold on what is allowed and what is not allowed to become law.
So in the end, it is very hard to tell the difference between one side vs the other side.

Remember THE CLINTON's....
THEY TOO tried healthcare reform, and it was NOT the republicans that marched down from the hill to that Clinton Whitehouse delivering the bad news that Clinton healthcare reform was dead. It WAS in fact democrat senate majority leader George Mitchell and the democrats in congress that killed off that Clinton healthcare reform.
Exactly as it is today, politicians back then were owned and controlled by business, by lobbyist, and by THE MONEY.
Show me exactly where ANY OF THIS has changed now?
On either side.....

So when they talk of middle class friendly legislation from this newly elected house, I say HA. HA HA HA.
They know all too well their words will never make it into actual law.
It's all about THE GAME.
And the ONLY hopes of ending THE GAME is thru TERM LIMITS.
Term limits and massive campaign reforms to eliminate dark money and the influence from lobbyists.
But notice, none of which democrats or republicans show any interest in addressing what... so... ever...

Viper1j · Jan 7, 2019

ivwshane said:
Now that dems have officially taken over the house can we all look at and acknowledge that both parties are not the same?

Does anyone remember what the first pieces of legislation were that the Republicans passed when they gained control of the house?

Last year it was the tax cut where the rich got the biggest cuts and the middle class got a temporary cut.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h637

What's the first bill Democrats pass? Why it's an anti corruption bill and no its not an anti trump bill.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...se-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi

Anyone think Republicans will be passing this in the senate? Lol, hell no!

The only thing that Republicans taught any visiting schoolchildren on field trips to the capital, in 2016, was the fair market value for a human soul.

pcgeek11 · Jan 7, 2019

fskimospy said:
Why do you disagree with ten years of tax returns? Isn’t it absolutely essential to know who public officials wielding enormous amounts of power are getting paid by?

Then we should make it mandatory for all of the house of reps and the senate also.

UglyCasanova · Jan 7, 2019

pcgeek11 said:
Then we should make it mandatory for all of the house of reps and the senate also.

I’d be for it. Like I mentioned earlier though it only matters if people actually care about who is paying them. Indications are most don’t unfortunately.

dank69 · Jan 7, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
How in the world is that trolling. Legit question, do you think her accepting those payments is morally and ethically fine?

Yes.

fskimospy · Jan 7, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
Ok you seem to be very reluctant to answer with anything other than swearing/name calling so I think it’s safe to say that yes, you agree that it’s morally and ethically wrong for her to accept those payments. It seems you agree our Secretary of State shouldn’t be accepting payments from entity’s linked to foreign governments while simultaneously not only being in charge of the foreign diplomacy arm of the government but acting on a committee tasked with the approval of a sensitive deal to that same foreign government. And it seems you also find it very ethically challenged for a SoS and presidential candidate to have accepted $153 million to give 30 minute speeches, and that flow of money could potentially taint her judgement or at the very least give the perception of doing so.

And it seems it really, really pains you to admit it. And to answer the question posed in the thread title, yes it appears at the end of the day both sides are the same. Politicians love power and money and will do very dubious things to get it.

You’re going to throw your back out from twisting so hard to #bothsides this.

There is no way any reasonable or rational person can say that both sides are the same. It requires willful denial of reality. Basically at this point you’re saying that Clinton’s husband speaking at a conference paid for in part by an entity linked to the Russian government while she is one of 9 players evaluating a deal by a totally separate entity is the same thing as foreign governments paying cash bribes to the president through his hotel.

Someday you’re going to have to accept the fact that conservatives at this time are much, much, MUCH worse and far, far more corrupt. It’s what all the evidence says.

dank69 · Jan 7, 2019

pcgeek11 said:
Then we should make it mandatory for all of the house of reps and the senate also.

I would agree with this.

Jhhnn · Jan 7, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
So to confirm, you think it is morally and ethically fine for an acting Secretary of State to accept payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars from an entity tied to the Kremlin while at the same time being on a committee (much less being the damned head of the State Dept) that is charged with approving a sensitive uranium deal for Russia? That passes muster to you?

What about all of the other entities donating hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for 30 min speeches. $153 million because people just really really want to hear what they have to say.

Hillary wasn't "on the committee" at all. Bill's speech for the Russian bank was in 2010, before the annexation of Crimea & Putin's war of aggression in the Donbass. Before sanctions. Trump's overtures came after the sanctions & while he was claiming he had nothing to do with Russia. There's the massive 2016 Russian smear campaign against Hillary in support of Trump, as well, something you want to deny ever happened, of course.

Anybody who wants some insight into Trump's relationship with Putin merely needs to watch their joint press conference in Helsinki. Vlad owns Donnie.

dank69 · Jan 7, 2019

Jhhnn said:
Hillary wasn't "on the committee" at all. Bill's speech for the Russian bank was in 2010, before the annexation of Crimea & Putin's war of aggression in the Donbass. Before sanctions. Trump's overtures came after the sanctions & while he was claiming he had nothing to do with Russia. There's the massive 2016 Russian smear campaign against Hillary in support of Trump, as well, something you want to deny ever happened, of course.

Anybody who wants some insight into Trump's relationship with Putin merely needs to watch their joint press conference in Helsinki. Vlad owns Donnie.

And @UglyCasanova wonders why people accuse him of being a concern troll. He claims to be independent but his knowledge of politics is limited to only the garbage coming from the conservative media bubble.

zinfamous · Jan 7, 2019

UglyCasanova said:
It is both sides which I thought was the topic of the thread. We knew about Bill getting a 500k payment from a Kremlin linked bank for giving a speech around the same time Hillary was involved in a uranium deal that benefited Russia. That’s one of many payments received for 30 min speeches. That certainly raises eyebrows and questions on the ethics of elected officials or candidates accepting large sums of essentially gimme money. Is there some sort of contract she’s beholden to for the payers once elected? No, but it would be incredibly naive to thing the companies/countries are paying those large sums of money because their speech is just so captivating, and equally naive to think that she accepts the money and says thanks and forgets their "generosity" either.

Openness is a wonderful thing, but like I mentioned above I question at the end of the day whether it really matters. We knew who paid Clinton (or her LLC the payments went to) and it didn’t matter, I doubt Trump would be any different. Yes, both sides.

Jesus Fucking Christ you just can't let the zombie lies die, can you? what the fuck is wrong with your brain?

Jhhnn · Jan 7, 2019

zinfamous said:
Jesus Fucking Christ you just can't let the zombie lies die, can you? what the fuck is wrong with your brain?

Hillary hate is as effective as actual brain damage in preventing rational thought.

KMFJD · Feb 14, 2019

HomerJS · Feb 14, 2019

Paladin3 said:
The lesser of two evils =/= good. But it's the best we've got.

Most honest folks in government have an overwhelming desire to fix things or even the odds or make lives whatever they deem "better." It comes from the idea that they know what's right for the citizens more than the citizens do themselves. I find this a very common idea among Democrats.

The dishonest ones flat out work to rig the system in their own favor and profit from their position. Some truly evil folks pursue a position in government out of a desire for control over their fellow man. Some, in their ignorance or religious fervor, attempt to bring back the good old days, days that weren't so good to begin with and complete with antiquated ideas on racial, sexual orientation and gender equality. We've seen too much of this with Trump and his supporters. Can you say Republicans?

To answer your question more directly, both sides want control but go about it in different ways. Republicans seem a bit mean spirited overall, and Democrats seem to think they know what's best for everyone regardless of what the citizens want. Democrats just love to rescue victims. Republicans just love to hate on folks.

So, the first act for the Republicans was to cut taxes, which dumb voters liked the sound of right up until they noticed it was cuts for the rich. And the Democrats are passing corruption legislation in an attempt (correct me if I'm wrong) to create a tool they can use to wrest power from the Republicans and can Trump's stupid ass. I'd personally say the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils, and by a considerable margin at this point. But both want control and for citizens to be beholding to them. The idea of limited government isn't on either party's agenda at the moment.

My ideal federal government would govern as little as possible, have true respect for states rights and individual freedoms, husband the public money gathered via taxes as if they had no right to spend it, and return as much power to the state level as possible. Equality and "fairness" laws should be in place so those who are wronged can seek redress in the courts, but those laws should specify purpose and concepts rather then hard numbers and quotas. And people who are offended by what someone else does should be told to piss off unless true harm is being done.

And some kind of intelligence test should be required in order to vote, even if I would fail it.

Sorry for rambling.

Looking at HR-1 there are reforms to the voting process. Why is that not, just good vs "Dems thinking they know what's good even if people don't want it"??

Jhhnn · Feb 14, 2019

HomerJS said:
Looking at HR-1 there are reforms to the voting process. Why is that not, just good vs "Dems thinking they know what's good even if people don't want it"??

Conservatives' arguments are simply dishonest. They don't want everybody to vote. The idea scares the shit out of them. The GOP doesn't want everybody to know who pays for what when it comes to political messaging, either. It would reveal that the GOP is owned by radical right billionaires & that they've been chumping their voters with contrived emotional wedge issue for decades.

Paladin3 · Feb 14, 2019

HomerJS said:
Looking at HR-1 there are reforms to the voting process. Why is that not, just good vs "Dems thinking they know what's good even if people don't want it"??

I'm generally opposed to any government exerting too much control over anything or anyone unless it is necessary. Yes, I understand that the concept of what is and isn't necessary varies from person to person, but in general I want government to have as little control as it is practical without anarchy ensuing.

In general, I believe the democratic party wants to see the majority of power sit with government so they, as members of that government, can control that power.

In general, I believe that the republican party wants to see a weaker government with less regulation so private corporations and private interests gain more power, and they by owning or controlling those interests gain power/wealth/etc.

It is human nature to seek power, wealth, fame, stature, influence, comfort, etc. True altruistic motives are much harder to find in a politician. And even if motives are altruistic and noble, very few are actually equipped to govern others well.

The Democrats have a better track record of caring for their fellow man than the Republicans do by a long shot. That doesn't mean I would trust the Dems to do what is in *MY* best interests if they became the unopposed power holder in government. I kind of like it when the two sides have to compromise and can't get everything they want.

So, the only point I was ever trying to make in this tread is that both sides should have as little power as possible because *I* don't' see a *huge* difference between what both ultimately want: POWER. And I'd rather my federal government have a little power over individuals and states as is practical, again, without anarchy ensuing.

So, please stop comparing specific actions by either side to somehow trip me up in this debate. I've already acknowledged many times that many of the democrats' ideas are better for the country, and that I hate Trump with a passion, and even that I think Nancy Pelosi would make a better POTUS than Trump. But I'm *never* going to agree that the Dems don't need to be held in check almost as much as the republicans do. Power corrupts. Period.

hal2kilo · Feb 14, 2019

Paladin3 said:
I'm generally opposed to any government exerting too much control over anything or anyone unless it is necessary. Yes, I understand that the concept of what is and isn't necessary varies from person to person, but in general I want government to have as little control as it is practical without anarchy ensuing.

In general, I believe the democratic party wants to see the majority of power sit with government so they, as members of that government, can control that power.

In general, I believe that the republican party wants to see a weaker government with less regulation so private corporations and private interests gain more power, and they by owning or controlling those interests gain power/wealth/etc.

It is human nature to seek power, wealth, fame, stature, influence, comfort, etc. True altruistic motives are much harder to find in a politician. And even if motives are altruistic and noble, very few are actually equipped to govern others well.

The Democrats have a better track record of caring for their fellow man than the Republicans do by a long shot. That doesn't mean I would trust the Dems to do what is in *MY* best interests if they became the unopposed power holder in government. I kind of like it when the two sides have to compromise and can't get everything they want.

So, the only point I was ever trying to make in this tread is that both sides should have as little power as possible because *I* don't' see a *huge* difference between what both ultimately want: POWER. And I'd rather my federal government have a little power over individuals and states as is practical, again, without anarchy ensuing.

So, please stop comparing specific actions by either side to somehow trip me up in this debate. I've already acknowledged many times that many of the democrats' ideas are better for the country, and that I hate Trump with a passion, and even that I think Nancy Pelosi would make a better POTUS than Trump. But I'm *never* going to agree that the Dems don't need to be held in check almost as much as the republicans do. Power corrupts. Period.

This reminds me of a song.

I see your true colors shining through..............

Both sides are not the same

Lifer

IN MEMORIAM

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

IN MEMORIAM

Lifer

No Lifer

IN MEMORIAM

Lifer

Lifer

IN MEMORIAM

Diamond Member

Lifer