-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 1005)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/777/ - Trump
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, MP3, PNG, SVG, SWF, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10240 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 403 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ - Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

President 17/01/03(Tue)16:01 No. 1005
1005

File 14834556873.jpg - (68.60KB , 768x512 , 03ethics-master768[1].jpg )

Is this worrying?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/with-no-warning-house-republicans-vote-to-hobble-independent-ethics-office.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


>>
President 17/01/03(Tue)21:17 No. 1006
1006

File 14834746691.png - (33.73KB , 600x237 , 080cbcdd87c7b4be211ac7debae38c4e376afa05b068a4a97e.png )

It doesn't take a marketing genius to realize that attacking something with "ethics" in its name is poor optics. Since Trump's tweet pointing that out, they seem to have backed off from any dismantling.

Of course, that doesn't answer why they'd try to gut it in the first place. The closest answer I could get with a bit of searching is that they don't trust such a committee to be as independent as they claim to be, but you'd think they could find a quieter, sneakier way to work around that by finding a way to pack their own dudes in there for "balance."


>>
President 17/01/04(Wed)06:06 No. 1008

>>1006
Why does it seem like a majority of political scandals stem from the right?


>>
President 17/01/04(Wed)07:35 No. 1009

>>1006
>why they'd try to gut it in the first place
We're about to face the least ethical president in history and you don't get this?

Whatever differences they have, the office is of too much importance for the Republican party to either disavow Trump or let him be impeached for corruption. While they have control of the congress, this is their opportunity to set things up so he doesn't take them down with him. Unfortunately for both of them, he's little more than a sounding box for public opinion and can't help himself from shweeting out whatever he thinks.

>>1008
Nice bait.


>>
President 17/01/05(Thu)01:53 No. 1010

>Why does it seem like a majority of political scandals stem from the right?
Because you're not paying attention?

>We're about to face the least ethical president in history and you don't get this?
Nope, we AVOIDED that disaster thanks to the electoral vote.


>>
President 17/01/05(Thu)05:47 No. 1015
1015

File 148359165541.jpg - (29.57KB , 500x281 , wow.jpg )

>>1010
>we AVOIDED that disaster thanks to the electoral vote
You didn't elect someone who has been investigated for 30 years without a single conviction and instead elected someone who bragged that he not only committed crimes and that hasn't gotten caught because he was "so smart" (just don't look up that time he got caught discriminating against minority tenants).

Of course one might think having to file an amended tax return after an audit is evidence of a criminal act, in which case he not only has been caught but he's had to make restitution after. You don't get audited for decades straight without a pattern of discrepancies that require you to re-file on a regular basis.


>>
President 17/01/05(Thu)10:04 No. 1016

>>1015
>>1010
>You don't get audited for decades straight without a pattern of discrepancies
And you don't get investigated for decades straight without a pattern of dishonesty.

What is it about major party candidates that makes voters willing to accept one's faults as somehow less immoral or unethical than their opposition's? I've been trying to get this point across since August: either of them would be the least ethical president in history. Do you really have to give up knowing right from wrong and vote for someone you know doesn't have anyone's best interests except their own in mind every fucking election?

Congratulations, the moral highground is now buried six miles under Washington DC.


>>
President 17/01/05(Thu)23:40 No. 1018
1018

File 148365604643.jpg - (42.78KB , 1027x512 , PresidentPutinfluffer.jpg )

>>1006
For starters they didn't like that people were allowed to anonymously submit tips to the office. Submissions to the house ethics committee must be made publicly, allowing everyone involve to privately intimidate them into rescinding their statements.

The office also decides when investigations start and end based on their own standards of credibility. This is anathema to a group which spent 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars on a nearly continuous stream of investigations that ultimately ended up no convictions. That someone would investigate, see that there's nothing of substance, and stop - that's just patently ridiculous to congressional assclowns.

Also, Trump decided before 8am to support their actions, which is why Conway was on the talking head shows defending them that morning. The problem? Before 6am people had started Googling for their congressional representative. By 10am GOP representative offices were so flooded with calls they were returning busy signals. Trump only got on twitter to save his own ass from having already come out in support of it. That's why he said they should do it later. You know, because SOPA and PIPA were totally saved by trying to bring them up after six months.


>>
President 17/01/06(Fri)02:30 No. 1019

Almost makes you wonder why we even need a government at all.


>>
President 17/01/06(Fri)10:50 No. 1023

>>1016
What is it about political muckracking that makes easily swayed low-information idiots so ready to assume the bullshit they're spreading is factually correct?

Not a single conviction. Not one. After 30 years of swift boating. You think you would do the same after 30 years of this bullshit? Operatives claiming some girl you once went on a date with, who committed suicide years later, was secretly murdered by you? Not a shred of evidence, but that doesn't matter, you fuckers just eat it up like it's factually correct.

I really don't know why the fuck you guys are so easily swayed by what amounts to press releases written by Nixon Jr.


>>
President 17/01/08(Sun)12:57 No. 1024

>>1023
>>/b/761315

So I see you're with HURR. Wake the airwolf up. Do you think, over all those years, all those different people were working together to persecute this one person--who was no threat to anyone until she ran for president? That's as crazy as you think the people who call her a liar and a criminal are. I already turned your own logic on you >>1016. You lost as hard as she did.

>low-information idiots
The word you're looking for is "uninformed". Please, keep crying about how you think what you disagree with isn't true. Lack of evidence and convictions doesn't equate with innocence, ask your local mafia.

I know, you didn't read this far. You're already having a hissyfit about what a stupid Trumpkin tin-hat conspiracy theorist I am. I voted for Gary Johnson, eat a dick. It so happens that I looked into both Hillary and Trump as much as anyone can from a computer desk, and came to the conclusion that Hillary has made a habit of lying at times when it wasn't even necessary out of some kind of compulsion--she's got a problem, and that Trump is the human embodiment of everything that is wrong with the United States--he'll say and do anything to take resources and power and has no concern for what the world thinks of him because he presumes they'll do what he says if he's the strongest.

Why do I even waste my time posting about it? I know, you're already typing some bullshit about how wrong I am. You didn't look anything up, but you're going to ask me to prove my sources. Even if I tell you where you can find every specific case of Hillary's lies being called out and her slithering out of being held responsible you won't read them and you'll just call me a tin-hat conspiracy theorist again. Would you do the same if I showed you where you can find examples of Trump undercutting working-class americans and sabotaging his own businesses to work around the IRS? Or maybe you just assume that part is true and you don't doubt what I say about him because you've already made up your mind.


>>
President 17/01/11(Wed)04:33 No. 1027

Or maybe we are truly sick and tired of all of them.


>>
President 17/01/11(Wed)05:10 No. 1028

>>1024
>I voted for Gary Johnson
Poor baby, I bet you get pissed off every time someone points out that Trump won because of people like you.

Gary wasn't running to win the election. Gary was running to get the Libertarian party federal campaign funding. Wingnuts like them are never going to win an election anywhere outside of Texas, a place where wingnuttery is taken to new heights by idiots who think ignorance is a virtue.

Its all about being able to suckle on the government teat. They saw your compulsive obsession over fiscal responsibility and figured out how to sucker you into giving them fiscal irresponsibility.


>Even if I tell you where
Right wing blogs are such a factual source of knowledge, I wonder why anyone ever looks anywhere else.

You could post half of /elit/ to them and the only difference would be that some of the posts would actually be interesting.


>>
President 17/01/11(Wed)08:40 No. 1030

>>1028
>Gary was running to get the Libertarian party federal campaign funding.
I am aware of this. Just to say, don't mistake me for with HURR or DURR, both of whom I felt a moral obligation to vote against. We all had a moral obligation to vote against them. The majority failed themselves, and it gives me a delicious sense of satisfaction to see DURR supporters coming to terms with the fact that their patron is a pro-Israel, self-serving coward.

>Right wing blogs
I love how you dismiss the validity of my sources when you don't even know what they are. This is what I am talking about, you're impossible to convince. No source would be good enough for you, no fact true enough, no first-hand account valid enough, nothing can ever contratict your conception of the truth. I didn't always hate Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump but I came to distrust both of them after my point of view was changed by becoming informed--looking at them from every lens I could find, on more than two sides of the spectrum.


>>
President 17/01/12(Thu)18:29 No. 1035

>>1030
>I love how you dismiss the validity of my sources when you don't even know what they are.
If you think nobody knows the sources for every last story that's been written about the Clintons in 2017 you're either willfully ignorant or intentionally misleading.

The last pile of tripe I read was Bill is permanently brain damaged by pumphead. Only problem? pumphead is a temporary, not permanent, condition. Its permanency was discredited in subsequent studies, but the people writing these stories somehow never seem to keep current data sets.

Man its got to suck that you saw the two choices and, based on the equivalent of Facebook wall writings, cast a vote against both of them for a monumentally inferior candidate.


>>
President 17/01/12(Thu)21:52 No. 1036

>>1035
>If you think nobody knows
That's not what I said. I said you don't know what my sources are. You again presume that you do, that they are the sources you are familiar with, the ones you will deride as "right wing" or "conspiracy theorist" or "paid for by Trump", "facebook wall posts" etc etc etc, because you need to feel safe in your little bubble where things exist only as you know them.

>Man its got to suck
...to have to live with the fact that you got duped into voting for one of them. Congratulations, cog, the machine rolled right over us all, again, because of people like you--the subserviant majority. You had a chance to do something about it and it didn't even occur to you to try. All you are to them is a statistic. Gary wasn't a great choice, but he wasn't either of the power-hungry self-serving, disingenuous swine the major parties offered. You are the reason we can't have nice things.


>>
President 17/01/13(Fri)11:19 No. 1037

>>1036
>...to have to live with the fact that you got duped into voting for one of them.
I voted Lib Dem.


>>
President 17/01/13(Fri)18:59 No. 1038

>>1037
Well jolly good for you, barmy ol' chap, I do say the whole bloody world's about to fall arse over tits on account of this Brexit business.


>>
President 17/01/13(Fri)23:14 No. 1039

>>1038
Well put my chumdinger of a man, good sport I do say and put eloquently might I be so bold as to add.


>>
President 17/01/18(Wed)01:24 No. 1054
1054

File 148469908428.jpg - (59.61KB , 596x448 , Soros.jpg )

Well jolly good those globalist wogs will have to go away and sulk.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason