The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[BugI02]

...

Except for that last thing, which is non sequitur ...

You haven't heard the story of the border guard and the old man? Every day a man approaches a border crossing with his bicycle and goods. He is searched and allowed to cross. Although no contraband is ever found, the guard is always suspicious that something is not right. After many years, it is the guard's day of retirement. He confides in the man that it is his last day on the job and he no longer cares in an official capacity, he just wishes to know what the man was smuggling. The man looks around and quietly replies "bicycles"

It's an admonition that the obvious choice is often not the correct one

 

[T.Lex]

You haven't heard the story of the border guard and the old man? Every day a man approaches a border crossing with his bicycle and goods. He is searched and allowed to cross. Although no contraband is ever found, the guard is always suspicious that something is not right. After many years, it is the guard's day of retirement. He confides in the man that it is his last day on the job and he no longer cares in an official capacity, he just wishes to know what the man was smuggling. The man looks around and quietly replies "bicycles"

It's an admonition that the obvious choice is often not the correct one

Ah, right - I had not heard that one. Sorta the anti-Occam's Razor. Maybe... the Occam's Safety Razor.

But, I actually think it applies to Trump. He's making money off the stuff that isn't subject to the trade war.

 

[BugI02]

So is the fact that Trump might be making money off of these decisions necessary and sufficient proof that he is motivated solely or primarily by personal gain? Because it looks an awful lot like leveraging grey areas to support a preferred narrative and I'm really wanting to believe you don't have a byline at Huffpoop or Buzzkill

I would think an attorney would be the last one to be cavalier with standards of proof

ETA: Acknowledging that you have thought Trump should have gone the blind [STRIKE]faith[/STRIKE] trust route from day one. Speaking of the lack of any proof of any wrongdoing. That whole correlation v causation precedent

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/29/chelsea-clinton-perfect-example-why-left-not-real-/

He’s not a real American, she suggested.
He’s degrading “what it means to be an American,” she said.

How very Clinton-esque. Here’s a woman whose very parents epitomize scandal and corruption — whose dad, for instance, wagged his finger in the face of the American public to falsely state he wasn’t lying and whose mom, for example, was deemed by former FBI Director James B. Comey to have been “extremely careless” with the “handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” — and yet here stands Chelsea, finding cause nonetheless to wave a flag of righteousness and find fault with the moral and political compass of this current White House, this current president.

 

[nonobaddog]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Doesn't fit his into narrative he's crafting, or it's an afterthought. You tell me. He vilifies certain people, and he recognizes certain people. He finds time to sympathize with Tomi Lahren over having water being thrown at her, but doesn't have time to recognize the Waffle House guy. And it's not the first time, he brings attention to some things, but not another... like the guys planning to bomb the Somali apartment complex, or the Muslim girl who was kidnapped, and beaten to death or the Canadian Islamic center attack where 6 people were killed... but he has no issue bring up a deranged Muslim guy in Australia, that kills one person. It seems obvious to me, there's not equal attention paid... but perhaps, I'm wrong. You have another reason that you might think I'm missing?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/29/chelsea-clinton-perfect-example-why-left-not-real-/

He’s not a real American, she suggested.
He’s degrading “what it means to be an American,” she said.

How very Clinton-esque. Here’s a woman whose very parents epitomize scandal and corruption — whose dad, for instance, wagged his finger in the face of the American public to falsely state he wasn’t lying and whose mom, for example, was deemed by former FBI Director James B. Comey to have been “extremely careless” with the “handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” — and yet here stands Chelsea, finding cause nonetheless to wave a flag of righteousness and find fault with the moral and political compass of this current White House, this current president.

That is a liberal thing - whatever they are loudly accusing others of is a pretty good indication of what crimes they have been committing. Like Russian Collusion, corruption, anti-American activities, etc., etc.

 

[nonobaddog]

Prior POTUSs specifically kept their kids (young and otherwise) out of the spotlight for that very reason.

Certainly not all prior ones. If you don't remember little Caroline and John John, you just aren't old enough.

 

[T.Lex]

So is the fact that Trump might be making money off of these decisions necessary and sufficient proof that he is motivated solely or primarily by personal gain? Because it looks an awful lot like leveraging grey areas to support a preferred narrative and I'm really wanting to believe you don't have a byline at Huffpoop or Buzzkill

I would think an attorney would be the last one to be cavalier with standards of proof

ETA: Acknowledging that you have thought Trump should have gone the blind [STRIKE]faith[/STRIKE] trust route from day one. Speaking of the lack of any proof of any wrongdoing. That whole correlation v causation precedent

Standards of proof is a strange topic to bring up on INGO.

First, Trump, with his family, continue to make money. From professional experience, getting IP protection in China is... tricky. And profitable. There is no doubt Ivanka will profit. There is no doubt that the timing coincided with certain Executive Office decisions.

Second, one purpose of the blind trust is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Trump has always been interested in appearances, but the impropriety part isn't a big deal to him. The timing of this - and other China-related deals - raises the appearance of impropriety.

Finally, we don't really know what Trump is invested in, do we? At least, he hasn't provided any insight (that I'm familiar with) about where his investments are, so we don't really know to what extent these products fit within his portfolio. But, to Trumpfans, he's beyond reproach. He can't possibly be making coin while making America great again. Or, if he is, he deserves it.

Did I get that right?

 

[nonobaddog]

I bet he has had CAT in his portfolio for years.


Oh, and have you seen Obummer's net worth?

 

[BugI02]

Standards of proof is a strange topic to bring up on INGO.

First, Trump, with his family, continue to make money. From professional experience, getting IP protection in China is... tricky. And profitable. There is no doubt Ivanka will profit. There is no doubt that the timing coincided with certain Executive Office decisions.

Second, one purpose of the blind trust is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Trump has always been interested in appearances, but the impropriety part isn't a big deal to him. The timing of this - and other China-related deals - raises the appearance of impropriety.

Finally, we don't really know what Trump is invested in, do we? At least, he hasn't provided any insight (that I'm familiar with) about where his investments are, so we don't really know to what extent these products fit within his portfolio. But, to Trumpfans, he's beyond reproach. He can't possibly be making coin while making America great again. Or, if he is, he deserves it.

Did I get that right?

Not exactly. You give short shrift to the part where the people who insist his every action is only worthy of reproach push possibly persuadable people to adopt the opposite extreme, and the middle ground begins to look like The Somme

And you didn't address the proof-free nature of the suppositions one could conclude you support. Nice footwork. Foxtrot?

 

[nonobaddog]

Jack Johnson shouldn't have been pardoned.

Interesting. Why did you say that? I mean other than the obvious reason that President Trump gave the pardon.

 

[printcraft]

......Déjà vu all over again. Not only have I seen this movie before, but it seems like it's on on some channel every night.

Just spreading the wealth.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Interesting. Why did you say that? I mean other than the obvious reason that President Trump gave the pardon.

Can you not think of the most obvious reason?

I said that when it was first suggested, even before Trump. It's the privilege of celebrity. Johnson was convicted of a miscegenation law (laws designed to keep races separate). LOTS of people were convicted under those laws (black and white), some even lynched. Johnson's celebrity protected him, and was apparently so powerful, that even in death, it eventually exonerated him. My opposition, is that it ignored everybody else. You want to do right by history? Pardon everyone convicted under those laws.

 

[indiucky]

Johnson was convicted of a miscegenation law (laws designed to keep races separate). LOTS of people were convicted under those laws (black and white), some even lynched. Johnson's celebrity protected him, and was apparently so powerful, that even in death, it eventually exonerated him. My opposition, is that it ignored everybody else. You want to do right by history? Pardon everyone convicted under those laws.

That's an interesting take and I see some validity in that....The folks in Arizona were called racists when they did not want the Holiday to be Called Martin Luther King day but "Civil Rights Day" making the same argument.......

Interesting take Kut....

 

[nonobaddog]

Can you not think of the most obvious reason?

I said that when it was first suggested, even before Trump. It's the privilege of celebrity. Johnson was convicted of a miscegenation law (laws designed to keep races separate). LOTS of people were convicted under those laws (black and white), some even lynched. Johnson's celebrity protected him, and was apparently so powerful, that even in death, it eventually exonerated him. My opposition, is that it ignored everybody else. You want to do right by history? Pardon everyone convicted under those laws.

Johnson's celebrity didn't protect him at all. He was convicted and served his prison sentence in Leavenworth. He also was a fugitive for years before turning himself in and serving it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Johnson's celebrity didn't protect him at all. He was convicted and served his prison sentence in Leavenworth. He also was a fugitive for years before turning himself in and serving it.

A black man married to the white woman, convicted under a miscegenation law, goes on the lam for 7 years, comes back... and does a year in prison? And this happened in 1920? Sorry, you're not gonna convince me that his celebrity kept him in a well better state than most other people doing the same thing.

 

[nonobaddog]

A black man married to the white woman, convicted under a miscegenation law, goes on the lam for 7 years, comes back... and does a year in prison? And this happened in 1920? Sorry, you're not gonna convince me that his celebrity kept him in a well better state than most other people doing the same thing.

He was convicted under the Mann Act which is not a miscegenation law but rather it looks like it was intended to keep hookers in their own states. Jack Johnson took a hooker from Chicago across state lines and got convicted for it.

Johnson had enough money for a good lawyer and still got a one year sentence. Having enough money for a good lawyer does make the legal system unfair. That has not changed to this day and I doubt it ever will.

 

[Fargo]

Can you not think of the most obvious reason?

I said that when it was first suggested, even before Trump. It's the privilege of celebrity. Johnson was convicted of a miscegenation law (laws designed to keep races separate). LOTS of people were convicted under those laws (black and white), some even lynched. Johnson's celebrity protected him, and was apparently so powerful, that even in death, it eventually exonerated him. My opposition, is that it ignored everybody else. You want to do right by history? Pardon everyone convicted under those laws.

IME the "privilege of celebrity" as regards federal prosecution is that they really want to make an example of you. It is my understanding it has been that way long time, and that is it openly stated position.

 

[ghitch75]

Jack Johnson shouldn't have been pardoned. I found that bit of theater troubling, and uncalled for. I just shook my head, and asked "why." As for the other pictures, that doesn't really prove all that much. I am still undecided if Trump acts the way he does because that's "who" he is, or because that's who he thinks many of his supporters are.

so Obuma pardoning Chelsea Manning traitor wasn't theatrical ?

 

[Fargo]

so Obuma pardoning Chelsea Manning traitor wasn't theatrical ?

Of course it was, but I dunno why you lay that pardon somehow at Kut's feet.

There's nothing to defend. I don't like it, not one bit. Manning committed a crime that I'd call treason, and was subsequently convicted. He belongs in jail. Indeed it's not a smooth move, it's a rough one.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Of course it was, but I dunno why you lay that pardon somehow at Kut's feet.

Ha, thanks for that. I'd rep you if I could.