Originally posted by Lurchy
I like pussy but I don't sexually assault women. In fact, I'm not a violent person but I if I saw someone like Trump doing that shit to women/girls, I'm not sure what I would do. I just know it would not go in the assailants favor.
I'm not here to defend allegations against Trump. When he's convicted of sexual assault, he's convicted, and I can't do anything about that, nor would I defend it.
My point was that when going through those paragraphs, there isn't evidence of any corruption. It's mostly about him liking watching women in bikinis and shit.
Originally posted by Lurchy
Also, what is it about wealthy scumbags breaching contracts by choice that is ok while it is not ok for regular working class folks who got laid off due to no fault of their own 'breaching contracts' that is not ok? Weren't you one of the people who got all uppity because of the millions of Americans who got fvcked in the Great Recession and weren't able to pay their mortgages?
That's a pretty disingenuous oversimplification. I'm not in favor of anyone breaching contracts. We have contract laws in this country, and as far as I can tell they were upheld both during the mortgage crisis and in Trump's business activities. I agree with contracts being enforced, and if broken, the penalties stipulated in the contract being enforced - against the entity responsible to meet said obligations, be that a person or a business. The problem for the average joe is that they do not 'protect' their activities behind a separate entity most of the time. The law is admittedly too complex for most, including myself, to understand all that well, and that could certainly be helped if any effort was ever made in that regard. Unfortunately the trend is to make it more complex over time.
Originally posted by Lurchy
If you can pay, fvcking pay. If you can't, you lose your investments/property/etc and try to move on.
That's not really how it works for businesses, and for good reason. There would be far fewer mom and pop breakfast joints if someone could sue and get their house because they got sick, let alone massive corporations which aren't too often owned by one person.
Originally posted by Lurchy
The problem as I see it is that the majority of the people who bitched and moaned about their fellow Americans who got fvcked are the same ones who support(ed) the serial 'strategic' bankruptcy artist Trump. The guy has skirted on a billion or more in taxes and who knows how much in bills he owed investors, lenders, workers, contractors, and other independent small-business owners. He's the Bernie Madoff of the real estate investment world and now he's taking a dump on the Constitution to get us to pay his business expenses while he extorts foreign govts, foreign businesses, and domestic businesses to further enrich himself.
Gonna need a citation on us paying his business expenses (that would seem to be actual corruption,) but he didn't make the tax laws allowing people to deduct losses. If you think it's a good idea to get rid of those, I don't necessarily disagree, but for someone to not use them when they're available would be colossally fucking stupid. Every person given the option of giving a billion (or any amount) to the government versus retaining it, is going to make the smart choice and keep the money. I don't care if you're mother theresa or scrooge mcduck.
But this view of the mortgage crisis wherein people simply got fucked and played no role in their purchase of housing they couldn't fulfill their obligations on is just obviously one-sided. I don't think a debate on this matter would be very fruitful given our very different positions but I think you can at least recognize that people getting preyed on was not the only factor in play.
Originally posted by Lurchy
But other than that, the sexual assault, the racism, his utter disregard for the Constitution, his disregard for the safety of our country, his disrespect for anybody who doesn't kiss his ass, his serial dishonesty, his constant need for attention and praise, his entitlement syndrome, his disrespect for the office of the President, his lack of class or character, and the stupid way he wears a tie..other than all that he's probably (?) a decent grandfather. Maybe. Actually, he does know how to create an image and sell it. He's an ace at that! The man has skills, I will give him that, unfortunately they are all about enriching and entitling himself at the expense of those he fvcks over.
The sexual assault, like I said, if he is convicted, I'm definitely not going to defend.
The racism, I haven't really seen. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Disregard for the Constitution, that's something the courts will have to decide, but this is a political statement. Plenty of things many presidents have done could be said to be against the Constitution, but they could also be defended, and in both cases by Constitutional scholars. I mean Obama studied the Constitution himself but in many people's view he endorsed going against the fourth amendment on a massive scale.
Your condemnation of his view on the safety of our country is surely a matter of difference of opinion. He clearly puts that high on his agenda, and acts upon it, so you simply have a different notion of what will make us safe or not.
Disrespect, not much to say about that, but then it doesn't really deserve much attention either in my view.
The thing is, none of that stuff you mentioned (aside from perhaps being dishonest, which certainly isn't uncommon, although it would have to be tied to particular instances and with certain consequences) really implicate him as corrupt.
When I think of political corruption, one excellent example is congressional insider trading - skirting the laws in the country and using their position as lawmakers to benefit themselves personally in the stock market. That's something both sides have done for a long time, and done big at that.
I don't doubt that Trump will probably oust himself as corrupt at some point, the office attracts it and he doesn't seem to be of the character to go out of his way to avoid it, but I don't see it from the arguments provided here so far.
