Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[Agema]

Look, I really don't care if Republicans want Republicans in charge. That makes sense. I want Progressives in charge. But you have better options. You have the ability to pick a Republican leader that will not look so bad to us and the rest of the world. This cult is so damaging to the Republican image, I can't even begin to think of the aftermath of this all.

There's tribalism, obviously, particularly of less savoury trolling variety of enjoying the aggravation of the political opposition.

But I think there's a hefty measure of psychological defence in it all.

For many Republicans, to admit that Trump is a clusterfuck - corrupt, incompetent, morally barren - would be for them to admit they put such a man into power. No-one likes to admit they were wrong even on the small things, for something as big as electing the president, it's got to be particularly embarrassing and painful.

 

[tstorm823]

There's tribalism, obviously, particularly of less savoury trolling variety of enjoying the aggravation of the political opposition.

But I think there's a hefty measure of psychological defence in it all.

For many Republicans, to admit that Trump is a clusterfuck - corrupt, incompetent, morally barren - would be for them to admit they put such a man into power. No-one likes to admit they were wrong even on the small things, for something as big as electing the president, it's got to be particularly embarrassing and painful.

Embarrassing and painful? You think Trump supporters are embarrassed? People go to his rallies like they're rock concerts, they wear his hat like a fashion statement, this presidential term is an Andrew W.K. party song came to life. Party til you puke, man!

Obsidian's talking about the damage this does to Republicans, and frankly, I don't see it. The American Right is celebrating a time of prosperity while the left for reasons I can't even begin to understand is picking fights with Bill Gates. The left is trying to weaponize every convicted individual tied to Donald Trump as though it isn't a breath of fresh air to see someone actually allow sleazeballs to be punished rather than protect people to avoid guilt by association. And while the people carrying unbridled hatred for Trump are just insufferably miserable, the rest of us are having a blast. Exceptionally few people think Donald Trump is a man of upstanding character, but in the words of the previous president: "People who do really good stuff have flaws" [https://youtu.be/JJTV5658JDg?t=27], which really is a lovely summary of this moment in time.

 

[Trunkage]

There's tribalism, obviously, particularly of less savoury trolling variety of enjoying the aggravation of the political opposition.

But I think there's a hefty measure of psychological defence in it all.

For many Republicans, to admit that Trump is a clusterfuck - corrupt, incompetent, morally barren - would be for them to admit they put such a man into power. No-one likes to admit they were wrong even on the small things, for something as big as electing the president, it's got to be particularly embarrassing and painful.

Embarrassing and painful? You think Trump supporters are embarrassed? People go to his rallies like they're rock concerts, they wear his hat like a fashion statement, this presidential term is an Andrew W.K. party song came to life. Party til you puke, man!

Obsidian's talking about the damage this does to Republicans, and frankly, I don't see it. The American Right is celebrating a time of prosperity while the left for reasons I can't even begin to understand is picking fights with Bill Gates. The left is trying to weaponize every convicted individual tied to Donald Trump as though it isn't a breath of fresh air to see someone actually allow sleazeballs to be punished rather than protect people to avoid guilt by association. And while the people carrying unbridled hatred for Trump are just insufferably miserable, the rest of us are having a blast. Exceptionally few people think Donald Trump is a man of upstanding character, but in the words of the previous president: "People who do really good stuff have flaws" [https://youtu.be/JJTV5658JDg?t=27], which really is a lovely summary of this moment in time.

Bill Gates is pretty corrupt. Because, you know, the left thinks laws that benefit CEOs or the rich over everyone is bad.

But... you think that's bad? I know that many on the right think that rich people are impeachable, so I'm having a guess that's the reason

 

[tstorm823]

Bill Gates is pretty corrupt. Because, you know, the left thinks laws that benefit CEOs or the rich over everyone is bad.

But... you think that's bad? I know that many on the right think that rich people are impeachable, so I'm having a guess that's the reason

In an ideal capitalist system the wealth one accumulates is equal to the value generated for others. I know the real world is far from ideal, and some wealth is ill-gotten gains, but the man made his fortune paving the way for accessible personal computing. That you and I are interacting at all would not be happening without the efforts of Gates or someone like him. The wealth the man has added to society far exceeds the money that he has.

And the majority of his wealth isn't money. He invests, a lot. His money is funding enterprises that make the world better for people at his own personal risk. A stock market crash could knock out half his net worth overnight. And it's not like he's just throwing money at any business that might profit for him. He's got money in renewables. He's trying to put billions into a renaissance in nuclear power. The man might personally turn the trends on climate change, and if it works, his net worth is probably going to go up from it. Is it corrupt to create the means to stabilize the climate?

And then the rest of his time he spends giving away his money basically as fast as he can. It's not like he can just hand his net worth over to people who need it. A bump in stock values could "make" Bill Gates a billion dollars over night. But to give that value away, he has to liquidate the stock and find a place to actually give the money. Looking at big government programs or the behavior of lottery winners should tell you that cutting big checks all at once tends to go wrong, and charity watchdog groups exist because throwing vast sums of money around thoughtlessly leads to fraud and corruption. Even just giving money to a reputable group to disperse it for you is a risk: the Chick-fil-a story that irritated me recently was about how they gave money to a charity that gave money to a bigger reputable charity group that partially funded another non-profit that at one point worked with a Ugandan homophobe. The man has to work to make his philanthropy truly valuable, and he's managed to give tens of billions of dollars away. He's waging war against malaria.

Bill Gates is a man who got rich by improving the lives of literally everyone. He made a foundation to ensure his wealth gets used to help those most in need of it even after his death. If you're really going to try and rationalize the position that this person is corrupt, you have to understand that the person you're demonizing is better liked than any other business person or political figure in America today. Calling Bill Gates corrupt is the fast track to scaring people away from your politics.

 

[Trunkage]

Bill Gates is pretty corrupt. Because, you know, the left thinks laws that benefit CEOs or the rich over everyone is bad.

But... you think that's bad? I know that many on the right think that rich people are impeachable, so I'm having a guess that's the reason

In an ideal capitalist system the wealth one accumulates is equal to the value generated for others. I know the real world is far from ideal, and some wealth is ill-gotten gains, but the man made his fortune paving the way for accessible personal computing. That you and I are interacting at all would not be happening without the efforts of Gates or someone like him. The wealth the man has added to society far exceeds the money that he has.

And the majority of his wealth isn't money. He invests, a lot. His money is funding enterprises that make the world better for people at his own personal risk. A stock market crash could knock out half his net worth overnight. And it's not like he's just throwing money at any business that might profit for him. He's got money in renewables. He's trying to put billions into a renaissance in nuclear power. The man might personally turn the trends on climate change, and if it works, his net worth is probably going to go up from it. Is it corrupt to create the means to stabilize the climate?

And then the rest of his time he spends giving away his money basically as fast as he can. It's not like he can just hand his net worth over to people who need it. A bump in stock values could "make" Bill Gates a billion dollars over night. But to give that value away, he has to liquidate the stock and find a place to actually give the money. Looking at big government programs or the behavior of lottery winners should tell you that cutting big checks all at once tends to go wrong, and charity watchdog groups exist because throwing vast sums of money around thoughtlessly leads to fraud and corruption. Even just giving money to a reputable group to disperse it for you is a risk: the Chick-fil-a story that irritated me recently was about how they gave money to a charity that gave money to a bigger reputable charity group that partially funded another non-profit that at one point worked with a Ugandan homophobe. The man has to work to make his philanthropy truly valuable, and he's managed to give tens of billions of dollars away. He's waging war against malaria.

Bill Gates is a man who got rich by improving the lives of literally everyone. He made a foundation to ensure his wealth gets used to help those most in need of it even after his death. If you're really going to try and rationalize the position that this person is corrupt, you have to understand that the person you're demonizing is better liked than any other business person or political figure in America today. Calling Bill Gates corrupt is the fast track to scaring people away from your politics.

So, because he did good, he can get away with whatever he wants

No amount of money given replaces the fact that you are an ass, corrupt, or, in Chick-fil-a, an actual horrible person. Just because you contributed to society on something, doesn't mean you always contribute to society. OR in fact, your existence DAMAGAES society. If you need to give money to charity to ease your conscience, MAYBE LISTEN TO IT FIRST, before treating people terribly.

If you think this, you are corrupt. You, personally, have been bought. Bought to ignore injustices rich people have committed. I can recognise that Gates made a good product. Doesn't mean that he knows how to handle money. Doesn't mean that all he's doing to combat Malaria hasn't corrupted the government in the area, just like humanitarian aid from government (by the way, this corruption of humanitarian resources is THE reason I am interested in getting rid of humanitarian aid. Because, no matter if its private or government, it always leads to more war and death.) Doesn't mean he didn't treat his workers poorly, or not give them a decent share of their labour. Or monopolising an industry just to jack up prices for the $$$$. Recently, in the last two years, Windows went from about $1000 to $190 in my country. Great. Thank you almighty Bill Gates. Let me grovel at your feet and ignore all your other choice in life.

And I don't have that much of a problem with Gates. He seems to be one of the nice rich ones.

 

[tstorm823]

So, because he did good, he can get away with whatever he wants

No amount of money given replaces the fact that you are an ass, corrupt, or, in Chick-fil-a, an actual horrible person. Just because you contributed to society on something, doesn't mean you always contribute to society. OR in fact, your existence DAMAGAES society. If you need to give money to charity to ease your conscience, MAYBE LISTEN TO IT FIRST, before treating people terribly.

If you think this, you are corrupt. You, personally, have been bought. Bought to ignore injustices rich people have committed. I can recognise that Gates made a good product. Doesn't mean that he knows how to handle money. Doesn't mean that all he's doing to combat Malaria hasn't corrupted the government in the area, just like humanitarian aid from government (by the way, this corruption of humanitarian resources is THE reason I am interested in getting rid of humanitarian aid. Because, no matter if its private or government, it always leads to more war and death.) Doesn't mean he didn't treat his workers poorly, or not give them a decent share of their labour. Or monopolising an industry just to jack up prices for the $$$$. Recently, in the last two years, Windows went from about $1000 to $190 in my country. Great. Thank you almighty Bill Gates. Let me grovel at your feet and ignore all your other choice in life.

And I don't have that much of a problem with Gates. He seems to be one of the nice rich ones.

What other choices in life? What treating people terribly? Do you have reasons to think Bill Gates has done horrible things, or are you just assuming people are only rich if they're evil?

 

[Hades]

There's tribalism, obviously, particularly of less savoury trolling variety of enjoying the aggravation of the political opposition.

But I think there's a hefty measure of psychological defence in it all.

For many Republicans, to admit that Trump is a clusterfuck - corrupt, incompetent, morally barren - would be for them to admit they put such a man into power. No-one likes to admit they were wrong even on the small things, for something as big as electing the president, it's got to be particularly embarrassing and painful.

Embarrassing and painful? You think Trump supporters are embarrassed? People go to his rallies like they're rock concerts, they wear his hat like a fashion statement, this presidential term is an Andrew W.K. party song came to life. Party til you puke, man!

Obsidian's talking about the damage this does to Republicans, and frankly, I don't see it. The American Right is celebrating a time of prosperity while the left for reasons I can't even begin to understand is picking fights with Bill Gates. The left is trying to weaponize every convicted individual tied to Donald Trump as though it isn't a breath of fresh air to see someone actually allow sleazeballs to be punished rather than protect people to avoid guilt by association. And while the people carrying unbridled hatred for Trump are just insufferably miserable, the rest of us are having a blast. Exceptionally few people think Donald Trump is a man of upstanding character, but in the words of the previous president: "People who do really good stuff have flaws" [https://youtu.be/JJTV5658JDg?t=27], which really is a lovely summary of this moment in time.

I'd say the right is celebrating a time of great decline rather than prosperity. Morally the republicans are experiencing an almost total collapse and the same goes for their competency considering they put a guy like Trump in charge. Maybe they'll get some short term gains from it and maybe they will have ''a blast'' but the long term effects are ruinous.

I find it a strange thing to say that Trump allowing the sleazeballs to be punished is a breath of fresh air. He's not allowing them to be punished but puts them in important leadership position while being the biggest sleazeballs himself. Trump is quick to drop his support once his cronies have been found out but that doesn't strike me as very moral, more of way to cover his own tracks. Rather than allowing the sleazeballs to get punished the Republicans instead rally as one to defend the sleazeball while accusing those that makes their crimes come to light as ''traitors''.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

There's tribalism, obviously, particularly of less savoury trolling variety of enjoying the aggravation of the political opposition.

But I think there's a hefty measure of psychological defence in it all.

For many Republicans, to admit that Trump is a clusterfuck - corrupt, incompetent, morally barren - would be for them to admit they put such a man into power. No-one likes to admit they were wrong even on the small things, for something as big as electing the president, it's got to be particularly embarrassing and painful.

The question is this: IS he a clusterfuck to them?

He symbolizes that the combined sleazy tactics (Gerrymandering [https://theintercept.com/2019/09/27/gerrymandering-gop-hofeller-memos/]) and blind devotion of their most reprehensible of figures can lead to their will being met. Not all Republicans voted for Trump, but they have to bare the weight of the Cult being their representatives. And the cult loves every Environmentally-Destructive, Ally-Abandoning, Corporate Tax-break, Country-Dividing Moment of it

So, because he did good, he can get away with whatever he wants

No amount of money given replaces the fact that you are an ass, corrupt, or, in Chick-fil-a, an actual horrible person. Just because you contributed to society on something, doesn't mean you always contribute to society. OR in fact, your existence DAMAGAES society. If you need to give money to charity to ease your conscience, MAYBE LISTEN TO IT FIRST, before treating people terribly.

If you think this, you are corrupt. You, personally, have been bought. Bought to ignore injustices rich people have committed. I can recognise that Gates made a good product. Doesn't mean that he knows how to handle money. Doesn't mean that all he's doing to combat Malaria hasn't corrupted the government in the area, just like humanitarian aid from government (by the way, this corruption of humanitarian resources is THE reason I am interested in getting rid of humanitarian aid. Because, no matter if its private or government, it always leads to more war and death.) Doesn't mean he didn't treat his workers poorly, or not give them a decent share of their labour. Or monopolising an industry just to jack up prices for the $$$$. Recently, in the last two years, Windows went from about $1000 to $190 in my country. Great. Thank you almighty Bill Gates. Let me grovel at your feet and ignore all your other choice in life.

And I don't have that much of a problem with Gates. He seems to be one of the nice rich ones.

First, you have to assume there was a conscience that aligned with conventional morality to begin with. He could have easily listened to a Conscience that said "Only we know what's real and what's not. LGBTQ's bad. We're making the world a better place".

I'm going to put out a personal story. I understand everyone has the right to free speech, but I stress again how personal it is for me. I'll leave out names as usual not for their protection, but just to get it out without breaking down.

I had a few best friends in my life. I had one that was "Better Than Family". She was amazing. Simply Amazing. More than a decade ago, she had some irregularities on and in her ovaries. She went to the doctor, as you're supposed to, and the doctor saw the absolute state of it. How harmful it would be if it wasn't treated.

But the doctor imposed his own mortality. His own views. Religious, as they were. A woman is supposed to have children. What affront to all that is known would he commit if he suggested a hysterectomy. Which would have actually suited her, because she didn't want to have kids. She made the mistake of being honest with her doctor and told him that. That seemingly only strengthened his convictions. He said it was nothing, and he gave her some pills to mask the pain and hope it would all end well.

It didn't.

It rotted away inside her. Spread inside her. She was an active woman, and she could barely get through the day without her pain being numbed to about 3 on the pain tolerance level (and that was a good day) with heavy doses of medication. She lived liked this for a decade. A number of surgeries to remove damaged tissue. And then that Hysterectomy she should have gotten years ago.

It wasn't enough. My 'Better Than Family' passed away last year in May.

Now I'm sure that doctor has actually saved lives before. Plenty. Or fixed people. But for us and others (and I have to believe there are others who suffered due to this doctor's beliefs), this doctor took from us. Gravely. Irrevocably. I can be glad with the lives that Doctor saved... and never forgive him for the atrocities he committed.

Now, I don't know what Bill Gates supposedly did. I know how he has been working for the environment. His Carbon Capture Plant [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHX9pmQ6m_s] is the best news the Environment has had since the modernization era.

But as Trunkage says, if he brought misery to the world, then we all should weigh that to the true measure of the man. If not for just morality sake, then for future generations. I don't know about others, but I do not want to give the children who we're supposed to give this steam-pile to the impression that you can do anything as long as you give us back a few trinkets.

I'd say the right is celebrating a time of great decline rather than prosperity. Morally the republicans are experiencing an almost total collapse and the same goes for their competency considering they put a guy like Trump in charge. Maybe they'll get some short term gains from it and maybe they will have ''a blast'' but the long term effects are ruinous.

I find it a strange thing to say that Trump allowing the sleazeballs to be punished is a breath of fresh air. He's not allowing them to be punished but puts them in important leadership position while being the biggest sleazeballs himself. Trump is quick to drop his support once his cronies have been found out but that doesn't strike me as very moral, more of way to cover his own tracks. Rather than allowing the sleazeballs to get punished the Republicans instead rally as one to defend the sleazeball while accusing those that makes their crimes come to light as ''traitors''.

Although found to be inaccurate, I think the best phrase to sum this up is "Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned". Republicans have been touting themselves as selfless crusaders of justice, but have allowed the cult to paint themselves as deceivers of the highest order. But not of the rest of us. But of themselves.

Every time some Republican called for the impeachment of Obama [https://www.newsweek.com/trump-obama-impeachment-republicans-democrats-1466865], it rallied the proto-cult.

In 2010, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called the alleged White House job offer to ex-Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak if he dropped out of a Senate primary "a crime, and could be impeachable" for Obama, Fox News [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congressman-white-house-job-offer-to-sestak-may-be-an-impeachable-offense] reported.

Then in 2011, HuffPost [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tim-scott-impeachment-obama-14-amendment-debt_n_891521?ri18n=true] reported that South Carolina Republican Rep. Tim Scott?now a U.S. Senator?said Obama raising the federal debt ceiling without congressional approval would be an "impeachable act" because the president would "usurp the entire system set up by our founding fathers"

The same year, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Republicans should consider impeaching Obama if his administration ignored the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriage, according to U.S. News and World Report [https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/02/25/newt-gingrich-obama-could-be-impeached-over-gay-marriage-reversal?s_cid=rss:washington-whispers:newt-gingrich-obama-could-be-impeached-over-gay-marriage-reversal].

Back in 2013, the former GOP Michigan Rep. Kerry Bentivolio retained experts and historians to help him understand the impeachment process and said it would be "a dream come true" to impeach Obama, The New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/politics/ignoring-qualms-some-republicans-nurture-dreams-of-impeaching-obama.html] reported.

Also in 2013, ThinkProgress [https://thinkprogress.org/republican-congressman-threatens-to-impeach-president-obama-over-gun-safety-measures-2fb8f3b694b7/] reported that former GOP Texas Rep. Steve Stockman said he would file articles of impeachment if Obama used executive orders to force through tougher rules to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

GOP Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold even spoke of impeachment in response to a voter's question about the discredited birther conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in America and so not eligible to be president, Politico [https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/blake-farenthold-impeach-obama-095443] reported.

Republican lawmakers during Obama's two terms also called for his impeachment over the Libya intervention, the Benghazi attack, and immigration policy.

They spout 'Witch Hunt' and how unfair the Left is to the Right, but never look in their own closet and see what their side has done. It isn't about fairness in the Cult's eyes. It's about winning. And they will burn this planet to the ground as long as they get to pick the choice ashes for themselves.

Trump to them is the symbol of winning. Someone who will cater to them and only them as long as he is in power. It doesn't matter if other suffer if I benefit. That is the mentality of the Cult. Not all Republicans. I know Fiscal Republicans who have the world interest at heart, but just think it can be done for less (I don't believe that, but at least their hearts are in the right place).

But the cult. Those who will lie to themselves to believe they are in 90 degree weather in Miami when they are acutally in St. Paul Minn in a blizzard just because they want to believe they are in the sunshine. Those same cultist who will yell at anyone else who tells them that the cult need to come inside because they are getting caked with snow and will eventually freeze to death out there on their own. The same cult who sees other people saying How great the sun feels while they are being buried in the snow.

They will find the warmth of the same delusions. And proclaim themselves to be the only ones who see the truth because they all agree on it.

Meanwhile, we have 2677 pages [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/impeachment-transcript-takeaways/index.html] of transcripts and testimonies. Of Republicans calling out the actions of the President. As we've seen with people here, nothing to them matters as long as they don't believe in it.

The Power of Delusion.

 

[tstorm823]

I'd say the right is celebrating a time of great decline rather than prosperity. Morally the republicans are experiencing an almost total collapse and the same goes for their competency considering they put a guy like Trump in charge. Maybe they'll get some short term gains from it and maybe they will have ''a blast'' but the long term effects are ruinous.

Only time will tell us if you're right or I am, but the collapse you're talking about seems to me completely made up. Conservative everything is growing in popularity. Conservative events are getting crowds of young people, conservative media online is getting shockingly mainstream, and none of it is the old "conservative coalition" crap. I've only really been politically engaged for a dozen years or so, but this is the first time I've ever personally witnessed conservative voices just saying what they think and not tiptoeing around topics that might offend the libertarians or the neocons that might be Republicans if you squint hard enough. Nor are people acting so apologetic when the left accuses people of bigotry. This is a big source of why people supported Trump in the first place: the man is not a wiener. He's a lot of terrible things, but he's certainly not a wiener. Mitt Romney is a Wiener. John Kasich is a wiener. Rand Paul is like if Ron Paul was more of a wiener. Donald Trump is an arrogant buffoon, a self-obsessed narcissist, a serial adulterer, and his skin is genuinely orange, but he's not a wiener. I'm frankly excited about the post-Trump future. There is no doubt that conservatism is popular in America: individual freedom, limited government, and patriotic love of country are not hard principles to sell. And now Trump has proven something that should have been obvious from the start: not being a wiener is also popular. When Trump is done, I have great hope that the actual Republicans who follow will learn that lesson, and will display their values confidently and not be wieners.

I find it a strange thing to say that Trump allowing the sleazeballs to be punished is a breath of fresh air. He's not allowing them to be punished but puts them in important leadership position while being the biggest sleazeballs himself. Trump is quick to drop his support once his cronies have been found out but that doesn't strike me as very moral, more of way to cover his own tracks. Rather than allowing the sleazeballs to get punished the Republicans instead rally as one to defend the sleazeball while accusing those that makes their crimes come to light as ''traitors''.

Let me put it very simply: pick any president of the last 50+ years. If any of them were in office while also accused of being involved with Jeffery Epstein, the FBI wouldn't have arrested him. Politicians protecting even their perceived associates to help their own image is basically standard procedure. Look at the people arrested while involved with Trump's campaign and administration: Paul Manafort has been in politics since Gerald Ford was president, Micheal Flynn was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, Roger Stone's political career started when working for Richard Nixon. Do you think all of these people were squeaky clean for years and then suddenly thought "well, I'm working with Donald Trump, time to break some laws!" Or do you think they were always doing questionably legal things and only got arrested this time because Trump doesn't know how to cover for people?

You know what's good for the future of the Republican Party? Putting Roger Stone in prison. That's a good thing.

 

[tstorm823]

They spout 'Witch Hunt' and how unfair the Left is to the Right, but never look in their own closet and see what their side has done.

Jesus Christ. The wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama] on efforts to impeach Obama is basically a list of Republicans saying "that might be an impeachable offense, but we definitely aren't going to impeach Obama." We don't know if there's a strong case yet, it's not good for the country, the senate wouldn't convict anyway, etc. And also Dennis Kucinich (D, for the record) cited as calling for impeachment, who literally said ?Now, it doesn?t necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him. That?s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.? Also for the record, Kucinich is the person who introduced articles of impeachment for George W. Bush.

Compare. The same article but for Donald Trump [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump]. Democrats were out for blood before he was inaugurated. It's pretty clear they don't even care about whether a crime was even committed, and have been looking for any reason to impeach. One of the resolutions for impeachment was for "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism". Forget for a moment this was based off the Charlottesville statement where Trump explicitly condemned white nationalism, so the whole thing was stupid on its face. Al Green, who introduced that resolution: "The question isn't whether we have a bigot as President, the question is: What are we going to do about it?" Green wrote in a letter to fellow lawmakers ahead of the vote. "The answer is: impeachment for his high misdemeanors, which need not be a crime." [https://www.npr.org/2017/12/06/568818578/democrat-pushes-vote-on-trump-impeachment-dont-expect-it-to-succeed] Rephrased, it doesn't even matter what Trump does, that guy's pushing for impeachment. In fairness to the saner Democrats, that resolution was shut down in a bipartisan consensus of 364-48. But that's 48 Democrats who voted for "we don't need a crime, impeach him anyway."

No Republican was doing that to Obama. No resolution was ever introduced to impeach Obama. There wasn't an "Impeach Obama Leadership PAC" registered the month after he took office. If you want to argue Trump deserves to be impeached and Obama didn't so the much greater impeachment efforts are justified, go right ahead, you might make that case. But if you're comparing treatment of Obama to treatment of Trump and thinking "looks the same to me", your eyes are closed and your ears are shut.

 

[Trunkage]

So, because he did good, he can get away with whatever he wants

No amount of money given replaces the fact that you are an ass, corrupt, or, in Chick-fil-a, an actual horrible person. Just because you contributed to society on something, doesn't mean you always contribute to society. OR in fact, your existence DAMAGAES society. If you need to give money to charity to ease your conscience, MAYBE LISTEN TO IT FIRST, before treating people terribly.

If you think this, you are corrupt. You, personally, have been bought. Bought to ignore injustices rich people have committed. I can recognise that Gates made a good product. Doesn't mean that he knows how to handle money. Doesn't mean that all he's doing to combat Malaria hasn't corrupted the government in the area, just like humanitarian aid from government (by the way, this corruption of humanitarian resources is THE reason I am interested in getting rid of humanitarian aid. Because, no matter if its private or government, it always leads to more war and death.) Doesn't mean he didn't treat his workers poorly, or not give them a decent share of their labour. Or monopolising an industry just to jack up prices for the $$$$. Recently, in the last two years, Windows went from about $1000 to $190 in my country. Great. Thank you almighty Bill Gates. Let me grovel at your feet and ignore all your other choice in life.

And I don't have that much of a problem with Gates. He seems to be one of the nice rich ones.

What other choices in life? What treating people terribly? Do you have reasons to think Bill Gates has done horrible things, or are you just assuming people are only rich if they're evil?

Nah, plenty of people are nasty. Rich people are just the people who can make it happen. Or rather, I see the desire to make money as corruptive, especially when it starts making decisions for you.

Bill Gates, when he was the owner and decision maker, should earn more than his workers. But not that much more.

He said corruption is the codt of business https://www.acc.org.bt/?q=node/1207
Now, I've got to respect the fact that he's honest and I'm highly aware that this isn't all his fault. A bunch of Warlords are being paid off the let the nets in. Who are then repressing the population. Governments have tried for decades to get around this problem to no avail, so I understand Gates'position. But corruption is corruption, and I highly doubt it's limited to Africa. He would have done the same in the US but with the aim to increase profits. At least he's corrupt to help people here

And this is his ecological impact https://www.syngenta.com/who-we-are/our-stories/world-malaria-day Curing the disease by starving the people. Certainly, he's doing a good job of copying Mao - trying to do something good that kills a bunch of people. We will see if he can turn it around before it gets stupid.

As I said, I don't think hate hin, he's trying to do good. It just has a bunch of unintended consequences

 

[tstorm823]

He said corruption is the codt of business https://www.acc.org.bt/?q=node/1207

?Anyone who wants there to be zero corruption should just go in their room and shut their door. Don?t go to Illinois, don?t go to New Jersey.? - Bill Gates

Can I get this quote framed? I also have special dislike for Illinois and New Jersey.

 

[Agema]

In an ideal capitalist system the wealth one accumulates is equal to the value generated for others. I know the real world is far from ideal, and some wealth is ill-gotten gains, but the man made his fortune paving the way for accessible personal computing. That you and I are interacting at all would not be happening without the efforts of Gates or someone like him. The wealth the man has added to society far exceeds the money that he has.

I would argue that the stupid quantities of wealth amassed by Bill Gates (and others) is poetntially evidence that capitalism is far from ideal.

In order to amass that sort of wealth, it suggests to me that competition is not what it should be. Good competition should really make it extremely difficult to massively dominate markets for stupendous quantities of money.

What mega-billionaire potentially represent is capture of markets by large actors which are then able to squeeze out (or simply buy out) others. Theoretically, a large firm need never innovate again - it can just buy smaller companies that do. If two companies go head to head in an area that can only support one, it's not necessarily the one with a better product that survives, but which one has more capital to sustain losses - and here again large companies can subsidise a lot of inferiority to success from its other divisions. They can lobby and buy out politicians up the wazoo for all sorts of regulations that benefit them. The money Microsoft might have extracted does not just represent "value", it's also a sort of rent extracted on people who don't have that much choice because Microsoft is squatting on a near-monopolistic operating system with associated near-monopolistic office programs, and can chuck a lot of money at government and court cases to keep it that way.

Embarrassing and painful? You think Trump supporters are embarrassed?

The question is this: IS he a clusterfuck to them?

No, I'm explicitly arguing some avoid feeling embarrassed through faith that he's not corrupt and incompetent. There's obviously a limit for all these individuals where their faith could be broken by Trump doing enough wrong, but that might be a high bar to surpass.

It can be a high bar to pass because, I suppose as Adam Smith said, "There's a lot of ruin in a country". There's an awful lot going on and the president doesn't matter to a great deal of it unless he does something amazingly extreme and ill-advised. The economy ticks over, the law ticks over, stuff gradually changes, and unless people take a big hit to their interests here and now, mistakes can easily seem trivial or even not mistakes at all. Trump can scrap NATO and sell Iran nukes, what are many Americans really going to care when it makes no difference to their daily lives? Then there's always a certain level of partisanship where something becomes a good idea just because the right person says so.

 

[tstorm823]

I would argue that the stupid quantities of wealth amassed by Bill Gates (and others) is poetntially evidence that capitalism is far from ideal.

In order to amass that sort of wealth, it suggests to me that competition is not what it should be. Good competition should really make it extremely difficult to massively dominate markets for stupendous quantities of money.

What mega-billionaire potentially represent is capture of markets by large actors which are then able to squeeze out (or simply buy out) others. Theoretically, a large firm need never innovate again - it can just buy smaller companies that do. If two companies go head to head in an area that can only support one, it's not necessarily the one with a better product that survives, but which one has more capital to sustain losses - and here again large companies can subsidise a lot of inferiority to success from its other divisions. They can lobby and buy out politicians up the wazoo for all sorts of regulations that benefit them. The money Microsoft might have extracted does not just represent "value", it's also a sort of rent extracted on people who don't have that much choice because Microsoft is squatting on a near-monopolistic operating system with associated near-monopolistic office programs, and can chuck a lot of money at government and court cases to keep it that way.

But like, is that happening? I feel like you're applying 20th century explanations to 21st century problems. If you look at the richest people in the world right now, it's a lot of tech people. If you look at who's putting together gross monopolies, it's like Disney. The vast accumulation of wealth these days seem to me rooted in out inability to figure out if intellectual property is worthless of infinitely valuable.

 

[Agema]

But like, is that happening? I feel like you're applying 20th century explanations to 21st century problems. If you look at the richest people in the world right now, it's a lot of tech people. If you look at who's putting together gross monopolies, it's like Disney. The vast accumulation of wealth these days seem to me rooted in out inability to figure out if intellectual property is worthless of infinitely valuable.

Facebook (>70% social media share, presumably including Instragam) and Google (92% search market share) pretty much are monopolies. They've theoretically got competition, and they're still monopolies. Amazon of course is rampant as an online marketplace, although as anyone can sell shit it's not as dominant, but ~40% is still huge. I think to some extent they created mega-billionaires because they started out pretty much as garage outfits, so the founders owned a disproportionate amount of the firms.

But nevertheless, if you compare these companies to other industries (banking, car manufacturers, petrochemicals etc.), those other industries have maybe 4+ major players in your average Western country.

When a company amasses enough power, it doesn't need to compete so much in terms of improved products/services - it can find all sorts of ways of shutting everyone else out. Mind you, even with about 4 players, there can still be forms of cartel-like behaviour. They compete against each other, sure, but they often also co-ordinate to protect their interests as a group as well: lobbying, think tanks, etc.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So, Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/republicans-want-hunter-biden-whistleblower-to-testify-in-open-hearings-idUSKBN1XJ0FK]

Here's the Number One Reason why this is Bull.

I don't care if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did it. If they did it, put them in jail too.

But as far as I know, Previous Crime to you doesn't erase your Crimes committed in response.

It isn't lawful. You don't get a pass for breaking the law because you were morally correct.

And more over, this isn't a Morally Correct Thing. This was in pursuit of Trump's old interests, as almost everyone who testified with firsthand knowledge has said. Again, the most recently damaging is Sondland [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/05/sondland-reverses-himself-on-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-000318].

U.S. Code ? 30121 is the matter here. Even if the Bidens are corrupt, That is a separate trial. Whether Trump employed corrupt means himself is the only issue here in Impeachment.

Hunter Biden's criminality does not enter into the fact of if Trump chose criminal means to find that out. It's really as simple as that. Because if Biden IS a criminal, it does not wash away Trump's Criminal Actions. And even more so, if Biden ISN'T criminal, Trump threw this entire country into upheaval if he chose to discover that criminally.

And seriously, who the hell states that they are going to look into the potentially criminal actions of a person apropos of nothing? That makes no sense as anything other than a political stunt.

 

[tstorm823]

Hunter Biden's criminality does not enter into the fact of if Trump chose criminal means to find that out. It's really as simple as that. Because if Biden IS a criminal, it does not wash away Trump's Criminal Actions. And even more so, if Biden ISN'T criminal, Trump threw this entire country into upheaval if he chose to discover that criminally.

And seriously, who the hell states that they are going to look into the potentially criminal actions of a person apropos of nothing? That makes no sense as anything other than a political stunt.

Do you know it's apropos of nothing? Do you know that Trump decided to push for those investigations? Or was he being pressured to do something? Do you know if there was information that Trump had that you didn't? There's apparently a email the State Department had from a month before Biden got the guy fired name dropping Hunter and asking why the US thought Burisma was corrupt. Perhaps there's more we don't have access to.

It's amazing to me that you can, in one post, argue that the situation with Biden doesn't actually matter AND suggest Trump initiated investigations apropos of nothing.

 

[Saelune]

Hunter Biden's criminality does not enter into the fact of if Trump chose criminal means to find that out. It's really as simple as that. Because if Biden IS a criminal, it does not wash away Trump's Criminal Actions. And even more so, if Biden ISN'T criminal, Trump threw this entire country into upheaval if he chose to discover that criminally.

And seriously, who the hell states that they are going to look into the potentially criminal actions of a person apropos of nothing? That makes no sense as anything other than a political stunt.

Do you know it's apropos of nothing? Do you know that Trump decided to push for those investigations? Or was he being pressured to do something? Do you know if there was information that Trump had that you didn't? There's apparently a email the State Department had from a month before Biden got the guy fired name dropping Hunter and asking why the US thought Burisma was corrupt. Perhaps there's more we don't have access to.

It's amazing to me that you can, in one post, argue that the situation with Biden doesn't actually matter AND suggest Trump initiated investigations apropos of nothing.

Trump, Biden, Hillary can all go to jail together, long as Trump is ya know, punished too. Left-wingers actually prefer to punish the wrong-doers.

All of your butterymales is meaningless hypocritical drivel meant to distract from the fact that Trump does literally every crime he accuses everyone else of. From vote tampering, spying, to pedo parties.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Trump, Biden, Hillary can all go to jail together, long as Trump is ya know, punished too. Left-wingers actually prefer to punish the wrong-doers.

All of your butterymales is meaningless hypocritical drivel meant to distract from the fact that Trump does literally every crime he accuses everyone else of. From vote tampering, spying, to pedo parties.

I agree with you wholeheardedly. I literally said the same in my message.

I don't care if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did it. If they did it, put them in jail too.

...

U.S. Code ? 30121 is the matter here. Even if the Bidens are corrupt, That is a separate trial. Whether Trump employed corrupt means himself is the only issue here in Impeachment.

Hunter Biden's criminality does not enter into the fact of if Trump chose criminal means to find that out. It's really as simple as that. Because if Biden IS a criminal, it does not wash away Trump's Criminal Actions. And even more so, if Biden ISN'T criminal, Trump threw this entire country into upheaval if he chose to discover that criminally.

I, like you, feel that it isn't a zero-sum game. If every one of these politicians are corrupt, throw them all to jail. Not one gets a free pass if they did criminal means to get ahead in the world. Whether financially or politically, which is was the point I was making before.

But all that is neither here or there at this point.

What in the Seven Hell are Butterymales?! That sounds like my friend's dreams come true.

... actually, he liked them oily. I don't know if this is the time to go into his fetishes...

 

[Saelune]

Trump, Biden, Hillary can all go to jail together, long as Trump is ya know, punished too. Left-wingers actually prefer to punish the wrong-doers.

All of your butterymales is meaningless hypocritical drivel meant to distract from the fact that Trump does literally every crime he accuses everyone else of. From vote tampering, spying, to pedo parties.

I agree with you wholeheardedly. I literally said the same in my message.

I don't care if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did it. If they did it, put them in jail too.

...

U.S. Code ? 30121 is the matter here. Even if the Bidens are corrupt, That is a separate trial. Whether Trump employed corrupt means himself is the only issue here in Impeachment.

Hunter Biden's criminality does not enter into the fact of if Trump chose criminal means to find that out. It's really as simple as that. Because if Biden IS a criminal, it does not wash away Trump's Criminal Actions. And even more so, if Biden ISN'T criminal, Trump threw this entire country into upheaval if he chose to discover that criminally.

I, like you, feel that it isn't a zero-sum game. If every one of these politicians are corrupt, throw them all to jail. Not one gets a free pass if they did criminal means to get ahead in the world. Whether financially or politically, which is was the point I was making before.

But all that is neither here or there at this point.

What in the Seven Hell are Butterymales?! That sounds like my friend's dreams come true.

... actually, he liked them oily. I don't know if this is the time to go into his fetishes...

They do not understand that left-wingers oppose evil. They see it only through the lens of party over country.

They also want to go 'Hah, you admit they are bad' but then go 'Which means we arent bad' which is not true.

Say it slowly. It is a mocking of Right-Wingers whining about Hillary's emails. 'But her emails'.