osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
With all due respect right back, you have made several blind assertions with nothing to support them, implying the old "if you can't see it..." fallacy.
The corruption is NOT plain to see. It is only something for which to be on the alert. You are drawing premature conclusions. Even if everything you claim at this time comes to pass, it will not settle the issue of premature inferences in your favor. It will only mean that you played the numbers, which are clearly in your favor, and got lucky. We can all say these things and rest reasonably confident that many, if not all, of them will prove out.
Now, how is it you conclude that placing a former SEAL in the position of SecInt is proof of corruption? You may not just blurt out the assertion and expect the world to kneel.
I would point out that the world is now so complicated, convoluted, and entangled that there is little to no chance of placing people in such positions of trust as that of President of the United States without potential conflicts of interest being present. Therefore, unless you want to elect a shepherd from Namibia (which for all practical purposes we did in the case of Obama) to such office, there are going to be potential conflicts of interest. Indeed, were you to seat a janitor from Rockefeller Center, the potential would still exist.
Some have noted that Obama put his holdings in a blind trust, the truth of which I will assume for the sake of this exchange. The $1.16 worth represented there was a mere triviality. To effectively dissolve billions of dollars worth of assets all over the world and to relinquish control and responsibility for not only those, but the lives of the tens of thousands of people you employ is not reasonable. I would sooner walk away from the office. That aside, I see no obligation on Trump's part to follow suit. If he engages in unethical behavior as president, it is Congress' prerogative and duty to take the measures within the envelope of their delegated powers to investigate, make findings, and take the appropriate measures.
You cannot elect a perfect candidate because there is no such a thing. Not even Ron Paul. What you apparently expect is not reasonable. What is reasonable to expect is not likely to come to pass: correctly, competent, timely, and honest action by Congress.
Once again, you draw conclusions without proper support. It seems you are allowing your emotions, driven by... I don't know, some personal issue with Trump perhaps, to dictate your opinions with insufficient regard for reason and logic. You might want to ask yourself why you do this - what is the real issue? But I am not your therapist.
Now you are REALLY playing the numbers. What lies, prithee tell, have Ron Paul told? Not saying you are lying, but only that I would like to know.
At this point, this is naught more than mere opinion. You have not demonstrated the irrelevancy. Furthermore, what is so unlikely about the assertion that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama's biological father? Obama looks nothing like his alleged father, yet strikingly like Davis.
Oh d00d, really? You're playing the race card? Obama isn't even "black". I would note that your use of "birther" strongly suggests your attempt to marginalize people, many of whom seek a relevant truth. To say his birth status is irrelevant is to strongly imply that the various elements of our "system" are themselves irrelevant. If we are going to have this political framework, a fact that brings me no joy, we should at least have in place the rational controls designed to prevent certain brands of perversion of that system that likely give rise to very undesirable results for free men - as if the "system" were not egregious enough when working precisely as ostensibly intended.
Now you're just gone off the plantation completely. If you have evidence that Trump is likely to have Bill Clinton murdered, now would be the time to present it lest your credibility suffer some terrible hit. Furthermore, I wholly disagree. There is plenty of reason to be concerned with the latter question because the answer stands to cast long and dark shadows over the reality of what has happened in America over the past eight years. It is as relevant as Bill Clinton's lies to Congress and the American people, as well as those apparently told by GW Bush, what with WMDs and all the other switcheroos of the running narrative he and his reach-around boys pulled to justify the destruction of Eye-Rack and Afghanistan, not to mention the countless tens of thousands of American lives ruined by their blasted and villainous warring.
Once again I ask: upon what do you base this assertion? As of this moment, there is nothing other than vapor. Where's the beef?
