Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there are a lot Trump supporters cringe when Trump resorts to name calling, and wish it were not part of his campaign. Thankfully, it seems to have stopped in recent weeks. At the same time, when I consider the positives and negatives, it is still better than Hillary and her policies, corruption, and criminality...
What "corruption and criminality" are you referring to?
The type that Trump ADMITTED TO (ie buying access/influence)?
So how is Trump any better in that regard?
What "corruption and criminality" are you referring to?
The type that Trump ADMITTED TO (ie buying access/influence)?
So how is Trump any better in that regard?
Ken
Big difference. He was a private citizen, not a public official. Secondly, it is not the act of making a donation that is corrupt. It is the giving of favors in return that is corrupt. He didn't force anyone to give him anything for his donations, they gave it on their own volition, if at all. As a businessman, or anyone else for that matter, if you want to do me a favor, I'm not going to turn it down.
Big difference. He was a private citizen, not a public official. Secondly, it is not the act of making a donation that is corrupt. It is the giving of favors in return that is corrupt. He didn't force anyone to give him anything for his donations, they gave it on their own volition, if at all. As a businessman, or anyone else for that matter, if you want to do me a favor, I'm not going to turn it down.
You don't see a difference?
That's completely bogus. Bribery is a FELONY. If you give money and get something in return it's a CRIME. It may be hard as heck to prove, but it's no less hard to prove than it to prove that the politicians REASON for doing what he/she did was because of the donation. They are 2 sides of the same coin and BOTH are equally guilty.Trump has ADMITTED he gave money and then got what he wanted. He BRIBED officials. Bribery is a FELONY.
He has kept the lyin and Crooked Hillary speak on twitter, he went after Flake on twitter yesterday.
Well, is it in dispute that she is a liar or crooked?
Either way, this is different than simple name calling. This is him questioning her fitness to run the country. Fair game in a campaign. If he referred to her canckles, that would be name calling.
If this is what you call "name calling", you would have to call Hillary out too. She uses similar rhetoric when describing Trump.
That's completely bogus. Bribery is a FELONY. If you give money and get something in return it's a CRIME. It may be hard as heck to prove, but it's no less hard to prove than it to prove that the politicians REASON for doing what did was because of the donation. They are 2 sides of the same coin and BOTH are equally guilty.Trump has ADMITTED he gave money and they got what he wanted. He BRIBED officials. Bribery is a FELONY.
Ken
With bribery, a quid pro quo is clear at the time of the exchange. Campaign contributions are legal. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are. Again, we are talking about a private citizen with his own interests at heart making a donation, vs a public official who we trust to have the interests of the people at heart.
Well, is it in dispute that she is a liar or crooked?
Either way, this is different than simple name calling. This is him questioning her fitness to run the country. Fair game in a campaign. If he referred to her canckles, that would be name calling.
If this is what you call "name calling", you would have to call Hillary out too. She uses similar rhetoric when describing Trump.
Trup has ADMITTED bribing officials. That sounds pretty "crooked" to me.
With bribery, a quid pro quo is clear at the time of the exchange. Campaign contributions are legal. Perhaps they shouldn't be, but they are. Again, we are talking about a private citizen with his own interests at heart making a donation, vs a public official who we trust to have the interests of the people at heart.
And how do you KNOW that an official DIDN'T have the interests of the people at heart?
If an official made a decision BECAUSE of a donation, it's bribery and BOTH parties are guilty. Now it IS true that it's hard to PROVE there is a quid pro quo, but that's true for both the person making the donation and the person receiving the donation. Trump has ADMITTED making donations with the expectation of getting favors later. That was his REASON for making the donations. How is that NOT "crooked"?
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 09-05-2016 at 01:28 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
