45 endorses other dumbasses during pandemic

[Draco Dracul]

Yeah, there's no such thing as a self made billionaire. Look back into any billionaire's past and you'll find several strokes of astronomical luck, a "start up loan" that could buy a small country and two state senators, and/or old money so old it has to be measured in geological strata.

Ah, the Obama approach: "You didn't make that". The same line of thinking that has lead so many socialist nations to produce such great products and innovations as...

That sounds like somebody who is made he can't even prove that the reality TV star is a Billionaire, much less a self made one.

I'm mad? You literally couldn't even type it. And yes, Trump is a Billionaire and anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist idiot.

I think it can safely be assumed he is not a billionaire from the fact that he refuses to release his tax returns, but is willing to admit to criminal activity on live tv.

Could you explain the logic behind that one? There could be other reasons he doesn't want to release his tax returns, couldn't there?

It's either because he's not as rich as he says he is or they show evidence of criminal activity, there are no other reasons than this has been a standard practice for presidential candidates for 50 years.He has previously shown a willingness to admit to crimes on national television, so that seems less likely than he's hiding his true wealth.

One: the "admission" of "crimes" you claim may not be an admission of crimes. I assume you mean the Ukraine affair.

Among others, notably firing Comey for not dropping the Russia investigation which is obstruction of justice.

Two: he might be hiding other crimes.

Three: he might not be wanting to hand the press other reasons for criticism along the lines of "if he's making this much money he should be paying more in taxes"

He's already has admitted to tax avoidance in the past and how it makes him smart so neither of those make sense.

Four: There may be reasons you haven't thought of. You have not shown that those are the only two possibilities. Maybe there are hints there of business plans, interests people who hate him might attack, embarrassing losses that don't lower his value below a billion dollar, etc.

His business plans other than letting the company his father built run itself have all been dismal failures, so his business plans have no value. If there where things to attack he'd have incentive to release them because his entire pr management strategy has been cause to get involved in a scandal to distract from the scandal he's currently in. I think if it was just embarrassing losses that still left him a billionaire he'd probably release it just to prove everyone that says he's not a billionaire wrong, plus there is nothing can beat driving a casino to bankruptcy through sheer incompetence.

Obstruction of justice is an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Firing someone doesn't meet the above criteria.

Sure it does when you fire them to kill an investigation, especially one into your own corruption. That is corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice. It's the same thing that Nixon was going to be impeached on before he made his corrupt deal with Ford to resign in exchange for a pardon.

How does firing someone fit that definition? It's not a threat and it's not force.

Did you not read your own definition? It's not "corruptly by threats or force", it's"corruptly or by threats or force " meaning if it's done corruptly neither threats nor force are required for it to apply. Moving to squash an investigation into a potentially influenced or compromised election that you won is corrupt.

[GreyICE]

Did you not read your own definition? It's not "corruptly by threats or force", it's"corruptly or by threats or force " meaning if it's done corruptly neither threats nor force are required for it to apply. Moving to squash an investigation into a potentially influenced or compromised election that you won is corrupt.

Well lets face it, he's trying to argue that despite it being obviously corrupt as motherfuck, that firing a prosecutor looking in to your own wrongdoings is legally okay.

Now if it was a Democrat Governor firing a state prosecutor looking into his wrongdoings, or a Democrat Mayor who got rid of their own chief of police because the police was looking in to wrongdoing at the Mayor's office, we can be sure that he would cry foul most severely. And indeed, that'd be the appropriate response. You should get outraged when that happened.

And here we have this sudden "well it isn't technically illegal" argument. He doesn't actually care, you realize. He doesn't care if the President did something illegal, something obviously immoral, something that reeks of corruption. He's just mindlessly defending Trump.

[Darth Wedgius]

Yeah, there's no such thing as a self made billionaire. Look back into any billionaire's past and you'll find several strokes of astronomical luck, a "start up loan" that could buy a small country and two state senators, and/or old money so old it has to be measured in geological strata.

Ah, the Obama approach: "You didn't make that". The same line of thinking that has lead so many socialist nations to produce such great products and innovations as...

That sounds like somebody who is made he can't even prove that the reality TV star is a Billionaire, much less a self made one.

I'm mad? You literally couldn't even type it. And yes, Trump is a Billionaire and anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist idiot.

I think it can safely be assumed he is not a billionaire from the fact that he refuses to release his tax returns, but is willing to admit to criminal activity on live tv.

Could you explain the logic behind that one? There could be other reasons he doesn't want to release his tax returns, couldn't there?

It's either because he's not as rich as he says he is or they show evidence of criminal activity, there are no other reasons than this has been a standard practice for presidential candidates for 50 years.He has previously shown a willingness to admit to crimes on national television, so that seems less likely than he's hiding his true wealth.

One: the "admission" of "crimes" you claim may not be an admission of crimes. I assume you mean the Ukraine affair.

Among others, notably firing Comey for not dropping the Russia investigation which is obstruction of justice.

Two: he might be hiding other crimes.

Three: he might not be wanting to hand the press other reasons for criticism along the lines of "if he's making this much money he should be paying more in taxes"

He's already has admitted to tax avoidance in the past and how it makes him smart so neither of those make sense.

Four: There may be reasons you haven't thought of. You have not shown that those are the only two possibilities. Maybe there are hints there of business plans, interests people who hate him might attack, embarrassing losses that don't lower his value below a billion dollar, etc.

His business plans other than letting the company his father built run itself have all been dismal failures, so his business plans have no value. If there where things to attack he'd have incentive to release them because his entire pr management strategy has been cause to get involved in a scandal to distract from the scandal he's currently in. I think if it was just embarrassing losses that still left him a billionaire he'd probably release it just to prove everyone that says he's not a billionaire wrong, plus there is nothing can beat driving a casino to bankruptcy through sheer incompetence.

Obstruction of justice is an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Firing someone doesn't meet the above criteria.

Sure it does when you fire them to kill an investigation, especially one into your own corruption. That is corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice. It's the same thing that Nixon was going to be impeached on before he made his corrupt deal with Ford to resign in exchange for a pardon.

How does firing someone fit that definition? It's not a threat and it's not force.

Did you not read your own definition? It's not "corruptly by threats or force", it's"corruptly or by threats or force " meaning if it's done corruptly neither threats nor force are required for it to apply. Moving to squash an investigation into a potentially influenced or compromised election that you won is corrupt.

Firing someone you can fire isn't corrupt. That's basically bribing or such covert actions. Nixon was being impeached for conspiracies, hush money, etc., not for firing people.

Do you think Biden pressuring the Ukraine into firing someone investigating a company tied to his son was corrupt? Biden claims that the prosecutor wasn't hard enough on corruption -- and Biden is probably right. Do you think the prosecutor should have been immune to being fired, or that Biden should not have been allowed to put pressure on the Ukraine government?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Seems legit.

[Draco Dracul]

Yeah, there's no such thing as a self made billionaire. Look back into any billionaire's past and you'll find several strokes of astronomical luck, a "start up loan" that could buy a small country and two state senators, and/or old money so old it has to be measured in geological strata.

Ah, the Obama approach: "You didn't make that". The same line of thinking that has lead so many socialist nations to produce such great products and innovations as...

That sounds like somebody who is made he can't even prove that the reality TV star is a Billionaire, much less a self made one.

I'm mad? You literally couldn't even type it. And yes, Trump is a Billionaire and anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist idiot.

I think it can safely be assumed he is not a billionaire from the fact that he refuses to release his tax returns, but is willing to admit to criminal activity on live tv.

Could you explain the logic behind that one? There could be other reasons he doesn't want to release his tax returns, couldn't there?

It's either because he's not as rich as he says he is or they show evidence of criminal activity, there are no other reasons than this has been a standard practice for presidential candidates for 50 years.He has previously shown a willingness to admit to crimes on national television, so that seems less likely than he's hiding his true wealth.

One: the "admission" of "crimes" you claim may not be an admission of crimes. I assume you mean the Ukraine affair.

Among others, notably firing Comey for not dropping the Russia investigation which is obstruction of justice.

Two: he might be hiding other crimes.

Three: he might not be wanting to hand the press other reasons for criticism along the lines of "if he's making this much money he should be paying more in taxes"

He's already has admitted to tax avoidance in the past and how it makes him smart so neither of those make sense.

Four: There may be reasons you haven't thought of. You have not shown that those are the only two possibilities. Maybe there are hints there of business plans, interests people who hate him might attack, embarrassing losses that don't lower his value below a billion dollar, etc.

His business plans other than letting the company his father built run itself have all been dismal failures, so his business plans have no value. If there where things to attack he'd have incentive to release them because his entire pr management strategy has been cause to get involved in a scandal to distract from the scandal he's currently in. I think if it was just embarrassing losses that still left him a billionaire he'd probably release it just to prove everyone that says he's not a billionaire wrong, plus there is nothing can beat driving a casino to bankruptcy through sheer incompetence.

Obstruction of justice is an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Firing someone doesn't meet the above criteria.

Sure it does when you fire them to kill an investigation, especially one into your own corruption. That is corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice. It's the same thing that Nixon was going to be impeached on before he made his corrupt deal with Ford to resign in exchange for a pardon.

How does firing someone fit that definition? It's not a threat and it's not force.

Did you not read your own definition? It's not "corruptly by threats or force", it's"corruptly or by threats or force " meaning if it's done corruptly neither threats nor force are required for it to apply. Moving to squash an investigation into a potentially influenced or compromised election that you won is corrupt.

Firing someone you can fire isn't corrupt. That's basically bribing or such covert actions. Nixon was being impeached for conspiracies, hush money, etc., not for firing people.

So by your logic a police commissioner that takes no bribes himself, but fires any cop that's not on the take would not be corrupt?

Do you think Biden pressuring the Ukraine into firing someone investigating a company tied to his son was corrupt? Biden claims that the prosecutor wasn't hard enough on corruption -- and Biden is probably right. Do you think the prosecutor should have been immune to being fired, or that Biden should not have been allowed to put pressure on the Ukraine government?

It's a moot point because the prosecutor wasn't investigating the company, and actively covering for corrupt parties in Ukraine.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yeah, there's no such thing as a self made billionaire. Look back into any billionaire's past and you'll find several strokes of astronomical luck, a "start up loan" that could buy a small country and two state senators, and/or old money so old it has to be measured in geological strata.

Ah, the Obama approach: "You didn't make that". The same line of thinking that has lead so many socialist nations to produce such great products and innovations as...

That sounds like somebody who is made he can't even prove that the reality TV star is a Billionaire, much less a self made one.

I'm mad? You literally couldn't even type it. And yes, Trump is a Billionaire and anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist idiot.

Says the guy with no sources to prove the reality TV star con man who ran failed casinos is as rich as he says he is.

Sure Jan.

Believing the norm is not being a Conspiracy Theorist. How isolated is your bubble that you think the common man thinks Donald Trump ISN'T a Billionaire? Dude, go meet people in real life.

How is it a Conspiracy Theory to believe that the con man who is bad at running businesses lied about his financial success?

[GreyICE]

How is it a Conspiracy Theory to believe that the con man who is bad at running businesses lied about his financial success?

Don't play their stupid game. They drag you into arguing about something irrelevant. Donald Trump has murdered Americans with his incompetence. Why argue about how much money he lost in business? Is it true that if he'd just invested his dad's money into an index fund he'd have more money than he has with all his various business failures? Yeah, probably. Trump was so bad off and has such awful credit that at one point he was taking his loans from mob-affiliated banks, because they were the only people who'd loan to him.

But even if he was the love child of Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos it wouldn't change how disasterous his presidency has been, how he obstructs justice, how he hides every scrap of information, how he gets furious if it even seems like he might get investigated, and how he has murdered so many people with his incompetence.

Trump's failures as a businessman are completely secondary to his failures as a president. While you could predict the latter from the former, the latter is now what concerns us.

[Darth Wedgius]

Yeah, there's no such thing as a self made billionaire. Look back into any billionaire's past and you'll find several strokes of astronomical luck, a "start up loan" that could buy a small country and two state senators, and/or old money so old it has to be measured in geological strata.

Ah, the Obama approach: "You didn't make that". The same line of thinking that has lead so many socialist nations to produce such great products and innovations as...

That sounds like somebody who is made he can't even prove that the reality TV star is a Billionaire, much less a self made one.

I'm mad? You literally couldn't even type it. And yes, Trump is a Billionaire and anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy theorist idiot.

I think it can safely be assumed he is not a billionaire from the fact that he refuses to release his tax returns, but is willing to admit to criminal activity on live tv.

Could you explain the logic behind that one? There could be other reasons he doesn't want to release his tax returns, couldn't there?

It's either because he's not as rich as he says he is or they show evidence of criminal activity, there are no other reasons than this has been a standard practice for presidential candidates for 50 years.He has previously shown a willingness to admit to crimes on national television, so that seems less likely than he's hiding his true wealth.

One: the "admission" of "crimes" you claim may not be an admission of crimes. I assume you mean the Ukraine affair.

Among others, notably firing Comey for not dropping the Russia investigation which is obstruction of justice.

Two: he might be hiding other crimes.

Three: he might not be wanting to hand the press other reasons for criticism along the lines of "if he's making this much money he should be paying more in taxes"

He's already has admitted to tax avoidance in the past and how it makes him smart so neither of those make sense.

Four: There may be reasons you haven't thought of. You have not shown that those are the only two possibilities. Maybe there are hints there of business plans, interests people who hate him might attack, embarrassing losses that don't lower his value below a billion dollar, etc.

His business plans other than letting the company his father built run itself have all been dismal failures, so his business plans have no value. If there where things to attack he'd have incentive to release them because his entire pr management strategy has been cause to get involved in a scandal to distract from the scandal he's currently in. I think if it was just embarrassing losses that still left him a billionaire he'd probably release it just to prove everyone that says he's not a billionaire wrong, plus there is nothing can beat driving a casino to bankruptcy through sheer incompetence.

Obstruction of justice is an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice."

Firing someone doesn't meet the above criteria.

Sure it does when you fire them to kill an investigation, especially one into your own corruption. That is corruptly obstructing the due administration of justice. It's the same thing that Nixon was going to be impeached on before he made his corrupt deal with Ford to resign in exchange for a pardon.

How does firing someone fit that definition? It's not a threat and it's not force.

Did you not read your own definition? It's not "corruptly by threats or force", it's"corruptly or by threats or force " meaning if it's done corruptly neither threats nor force are required for it to apply. Moving to squash an investigation into a potentially influenced or compromised election that you won is corrupt.

Firing someone you can fire isn't corrupt. That's basically bribing or such covert actions. Nixon was being impeached for conspiracies, hush money, etc., not for firing people.

So by your logic a police commissioner that takes no bribes himself, but fires any cop that's not on the take would not be corrupt?

Do you think Biden pressuring the Ukraine into firing someone investigating a company tied to his son was corrupt? Biden claims that the prosecutor wasn't hard enough on corruption -- and Biden is probably right. Do you think the prosecutor should have been immune to being fired, or that Biden should not have been allowed to put pressure on the Ukraine government?

It's a moot point because the prosecutor wasn't investigating the company, and actively covering for corrupt parties in Ukraine.

That's not my logic. If a cop is investigating something and you don't trust them, you fire them, even if they are investigating something. And from what I've been able to find out, the prosecutor was investigating the company. He was probably fired for good reason, but there was a conflict of interest regarding Biden. It did not protect the prosecutor, which I think is proper.

[Darth Wedgius]

To clear up some misinformation the governor of Michigan gave:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/04/21/police-rebut-whitmer-claims-ambulances-blocked-protest-traffic/5169518002/