Let's say that Sheldon has done his homework and all of his "Let's Say"s, are in fact true. If so, who among US, D or R, would support this big money influence of our government? Meh, there is little to discuss with those who will find some reason to support this stuff.
Its shady as **** ...and par for the course in American politics. Whether this specifically is true about Trump or not, this is a good summary of how **** is done in DC and Trump likely played the same game as the rest of them to some extent. Trump didn't make it to POTUS by being a boy scout, and neither did any other POTUS for decades. The big difference with Trump is he did it with a lot of his own money, and that pissed off the rest of the lifelong public leeches in our corrupt system who dont like folks from outside their shitty club. Do I support it? I guess that depends on whether voting for the least worst = 'support'. ...cuz its looking less and less likely that RFK is going to be on the ballot, and Trump is my second pick.
Why is it that this is such a common response from team Trump folks here? "Par for the course", "both parties do it", etc, ad nauseum. Which lib billionaires are promoting unions? Which corporations are funding and lobbying for the return of guarantied pensions? We know this much from the influence private side of the equation and likely agree about it. But then we come to the politicians' side of it and find that, I have to agree, both Ds and Rs are duplicitous in accepting money from and promoting the interests of big money over public interests. But, regarding the lesser of two evils, which party over the past 4 congresses has done the most for the public interest? Your personal income taxes were probably improved by the 115th Congress and then the 116th was a stall. Infrastructure received a lift from the 117th, and now we are stalled again with the 118th. I have to admit that my particular annoyance with Trump's attempt to overthrow this feckless system is riddled with valid points of argument on behalf of overthrowing it by his supporters, aside from the one major issue, imo, being that this is not even close to being the guy that I'd ever consider as a choice for doing it. Trump paid with his own money? Really? Links? You have links for this? You are gullible enough to buy that he didn't receive tenfold cash benefits, compared with recusing the salary associated with the office: from the office that few others aside from a book deal at the end ever made out with? Which of all of our past Presidents had income derived from visitors to their now abandoned DC hotel? THESE ARE YOUR LEAST WORST CHOICES?
I have a bit of a bizarre take on the US. I was of course born here, and I am not a bot, but I do not not necessarily disagree that the US might actually be the Great Satan. I have a bit of a penchant of believing in prophecy. There is for example, and I will paraphrase here, in the New Testament Book of Revelation, that keys are given to a pit from which a vast smoke is released spreading woesome destruction across all of this beautiful Earth. This is exactly a description of what would happen if my US Army branch had ever fired a Pershing Missile! The warhead of this nuke consisted of what was termed a sealed pit design and the keys to launch it were part of what was labelled a permissive action link. .... And the risk, imo, of this happening is vastly more scary under Trump than Biden....
As it presently appears the options are between Biden and Trump, I'm going with Biden. You should already know this about me.
Oh yes I remember the liberals telling us not to vote for Trump because there was a real danger that he could start a nuclear war. Ironically the people that progressives voted for has us engaged in a proxy war with a nuclear power where that is actually a distinct possibility. Something no one can claim the bad orange man did
I don't notice here that you've made the mistake of calling me a liberal or a progressive, and although I am both of these on certain subjects, I have far more credibility as a conservative I think than many that pretend to be here demonstrate. Trump's moving of the embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was unnecessary and is the sort of stuff that I think of when it comes to those moments I have when I post crap like I do from time-to-time such as #4 above. Interestingly, the stuff I mention in #4 is factual both with regard to the design of the Pershing Missile warhead, and the cross reference to the applicability and similarity of how the unlocking of this sealed pit would indeed result in a very bad amount of smoke. I suspect the permissive action link and the sealed pit are common features of all of the US nukes. And if ever there was a candidate that fit the bill of being an antichrist, that would be the orange man bad. Regarding your sporty observation, at the moment you've caught me when I'm all aboot it. Joe should take a page from Doc von Neumann and strike first.
I stated nothing more than facts. So if I'm understanding your last sentence correctly... You think Joe should go ahead and launch nukes at Russia?
His estimated net worth dropped by close to $1B between 2015 and 2020 (sources vary from $700M to $1B). Can you point to a single other politician who came out of office poorer than going in? Im not suggesting he didn't also use campaign funds or even engage in some of the dirty money laundering that proliferates govt activity (as i said i doubt hes any sort of boy scout), but at the end of the day and the end of the balance sheet, he spent way more than he got. It simply cannot be demonstrated in any objective terms he's in politics for the self enrichment that most other politicians 'just happen to find' in office. I mean maybe he has a secret bunker full of gold bars no one knows about, but that could be said of anyone now. Objectively, Trump lost a lot of money both getting in office and while he was there. And while its prolly not sposed to work like that, they certainly arent sposed to come out millions of dollars richer either, which is usually the case, and is the case with Biden btw.
When someone preaches against dark money, the odds are they are getting some of it. Democratic 'dark money' critic Sheldon Whitehouse has deep ties to secret donor world Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has long been the Left's foremost critic of "dark money," which he's said "corrupts" politics and poses a "threat to democracy." But a Washington Examiner review of the senator's donors, green energy affiliations, and efforts to transform the Supreme Court tell another story. He has for many years benefited from the influence of dark money and held certain ties to dark money groups.
