Conspiracy Theories / Wild Predictions

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't believe that you can cut taxes and generate more revenue....

Sure you can -- it all depends on where the rates were, how much you're cutting them, etc.. Cutting rates won't always lead to more revenue. But it surely can under the right circumstances. Otherwise, the reverse would always be true - increasing tax rates would always bring in more tax revenue.

Of course, I would add that raising government revenues is not the primary reason to cut individual taxes. The primary reason to cut individual taxes is to let people keep more of the money they have earned.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Ivanka Trump is an adviser to the President of the United States, playing a role in foreign affairs, and you're okay with her accepting donations from a foreign corporation?

I'm okay with her charitable foundation accepting donations from foreign governments, absolutely.

 

[AZ_]

I'm okay with her charitable foundation accepting donations from foreign governments, absolutely.

But not okay with the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign governments, even though Bill Clinton is a private citizen and Hillary relinquished her responsibilities to the organization?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But not okay with the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign governments, even though Bill Clinton is a private citizen and Hillary relinquished her responsibilities to the organization?

Bill's involvement, conceptually, never bothered me. Nothing wrong with a former President setting up a legitimate charitable endeavor. He should not be barred from doing so simply because his wife was a Senator.

But Hillary's involvement, as a still-active political figure, was different. After she left the State Department, everyone knew that she was running in 2016 and was the presumptive Democrat nominee. The Foundation and the CGI essentially became a conduit for foreigners to buy political influence with the likely next President of the United States.

That issue is compounded because the Clinton Foundation and CGI really didn't give grants to anyone. It was essentially a means of keeping employed a shit-ton of political allies.

 

[Cavatt]

You asked "how is this not illegal", and I answered you. Do you have a response to that point, or not?

As far as the morality of it, it would depend on whether or not her father was ever actively a part of it. But otherwise, I fail to see how it would be any different from a member of the family who is in business, and deals internationally. I see nothing inherently wrong with that, as I don't think a politician's entire family, including adult children, should be required to sever all international ties . They have to earn a living as well.



If you would like to me to explain why the Clinton Foundation was much worse, I could do so. Although it should be self-evident based on my comments above.

It's only not illegal because she isn't drawing a salary for her "Undiagnosed appointment". It's a problem of conflicts of interest like her getting her chinese trademarks immediately after her meeting with the Chinese president. How much personal biz is she doing while she is doing her unpaid job?

Anyway it isn't the most egregious entanglement they have as a family going right now.

 

[AZ_]

Bill's involvement, conceptually, never bothered me. Nothing wrong with a former President setting up a legitimate charitable endeavor. He should not be barred from doing so simply because his wife was a Senator.

But Hillary's involvement, as a still-active political figure, was different. After she left the State Department, everyone knew that she was running in 2016 and was the presumptive Democrat nominee. The Foundation and the CGI essentially became a conduit for foreigners to buy political influence with the likely next President of the United States.

That issue is compounded because the Clinton Foundation and CGI really didn't give grants to anyone. It was essentially a means of keeping employed a shit-ton of political allies.

But how can you then turn around and say Ivanka Trump, who CLEARLY has political influence with an ONGOING administration is free and clear to do what she pleases with regards to accepting this money?

How is her new foundation not a conduit to buy influence?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But how can you then turn around and say Ivanka Trump, who CLEARLY has political influence with an ONGOING administration is free and clear to do what she pleases with regards to accepting this money?

Because there are innumerable people who have "influence" with an Administration that have business dealings overseas. It's not a workable place to draw a line. It's got to be with the politician themselves, or and spouse while in office if the spouse is living there. But I don't think you can fairly extend ethics laws to children, or relatives other than a spouse.

 

[AZ_]

Because there are innumerable people who have "influence" with an Administration that have business dealings overseas. It's not a workable place to draw a line. It's got to be with the politician themselves, or and spouse while in office if the spouse is living there. But I don't think you can fairly extend ethics laws to children, or relatives other than a spouse.

We're not talking about innumerable people, we're talking about government employee who works and advises for the President who is also a blood relative.

You're kidding yourself if you're not sitting there and telling me this isn't a blatant ethical nightmare.

We're going to cop out behind the fact she's his daughter (who he might be fucking, anyway) and not his spouse?

Come on bro...

 

[buzzdog]

See, what you're doing there is pointing to a specific group with whom you disagree, the "fly-over heartland population", and pegging them as the people out of touch with reality. I would argue that belief in a false reality/facts is just as common among leftist elites on the coasts. They just dress it up in fancier words. And I'd say it is every often our own mainstream press that tries to do the exact same thing.

Frankly, I think the whole "fake news from Russia" thing was wildly overblown in terms of any impact on the election. For the most part, the people who believed those stories were people who were going to vote for Trump anyway. What likely did have an effect is the WikiLeaks dumps, but those were actually true facts.

I'm talking about people I personally know and interact with, and their broader social circles. This is coming from first hand experiences and conversations.

I have very little contact with lefty elitists on either coast so I have almost no personal experiences or conversations to base anything on in the same way. My wife is a left leaning never-Trumper and I'm constantly pulling her back to reality with her hopes for impeachment.

I did encounter my share of far left new-age types when I lived in Taos NM who were against everything from cell phone towers to jet contrails and who were badly misinformed regarding my profession (natural resource extraction) and I called them out every chance I had.

FWIW if given a choice I'll hang out with misinformed rednecks over misinformed new-agers 10 times out of 10. The new-agers are more insufferable IME.

The WikiLeaks and Comey revelations most certainly had an impact on the relatively small number of upper midwest swing state votes that won Trump the electoral college. I saw Russian fake news being plastered all over my FB pages from my numerous conservative FB friends and they had no idea where those memes and articles came from. They probably still don't, and they probably still believe that stuff is true. If my microcosm shows that kind of anecdotal information I don't think it's any kind of a leap at all to extrapolate the effect the Russian campaign effort had on the votes that counted most, they were the exact same demographic that swung the election.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

We're not talking about innumerable people, we're talking about government employee.....

No, we're not talking about a government employee. We've already established that.[/quote

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm talking about people I personally know and interact with, and their broader social circles. This is coming from first hand experiences and conversations.

Just so you're aware, a lot of us conservatives have the exact same experience with people on the left -- not just on the coasts but in the Midwest as well.

The WikiLeaks and Comey revelations most certainly had an impact on the relatively small number of upper midwest swing state votes that won Trump the electoral college.

Wait a minute. Those weren't fake. They were true. If you want to say that Hillary lost because the Russians exposed dirty dealings within the DNC, I think that's a defensible position to take. Can't be proven, obviously, but it may have been the case.

If you think those documents had that impact, then what happened was that voters decided that the facts contained in those documents were more important to their voting choice than the fact that the Russians got them illegally. Voters are certainly entitled to make that determination, which I personally think was kind of a no-brainer.

 

[Scrote Squad]

No, we're not talking about a government employee. We've already established that.[/quote

"I have heard the concerns some have with my advising the President in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with all ethics rules, and I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees," Ivanka Trump said in a statement.

Because there are innumerable people who have "influence" with an Administration that have business dealings overseas. It's not a workable place to draw a line. It's got to be with the politician themselves, or and spouse while in office if the spouse is living there. But I don't think you can fairly extend ethics laws to children, or relatives other than a spouse.

She has a White House office. Just represented the administration at the W20 convention in Germany. But she doesn't live there, so it's okay.

Ivanka, serving as a personal adviser to her father, the POTUS, accepts foreign donations to her charity, and that doesn't raise serious conflict of interest questions to you?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

"I have heard the concerns some have with my advising the President in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with all ethics rules, and I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House Office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees," Ivanka Trump said in a statement.



She has a White House office. Just represented the administration at the W20 convention in Germany. But she doesn't live there, so it's okay.

Ivanka, serving as a personal adviser to her father, the POTUS, accepts foreign donations to her charity, and that doesn't raise serious conflict of interest questions to you?

I'd prefer she didn't, but no, it really doesn't. Especially since the fund is going to be run by the World Bank, so it would seem impossible for either her or her father to benefit personally from it.

What's kind of funny is that her father is proposing slashing the amount of money we contribute to the World Bank. Heh.

https://thinkprogress.org/ivanka-wr...ather-wants-to-slash-its-funding-9579a7260c44

Should probably be noted that she wrote a book prior to the election, and has directed the proceeds go to the Urban League and Boys and Girls clubs. Corrupt as hell, I say!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ivanka-trump-charitable-fund-books

 

[AZ_]

No, we're not talking about a government employee. We've already established that.[/quote

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/ivanka-trump-white-house-job/

 

[-Akronite-]

Wait a minute. Those weren't fake. They were true. If you want to say that Hillary lost because the Russians exposed dirty dealings within the DNC, I think that's a defensible position to take. Can't be proven, obviously, but it may have been the case.

You're mixing up two different things here. The Wikileaks were not fake. But there was also a Russian campaign to spread fake news and troll the internet with anti-Hillary propaganda. And it was successful. This is not to entirely pass blame from the Clinton campaign, but these things did happen.