Air Kaepernik's just released.
Best Posts in Forum: Politics
Page 4 of 407
My first thought was to shake my head and laugh at the level of delusion it takes to convince himself of this--and then to say it aloud in public.
But my second thought was more charitable: namely, that the poor guy is in utter shock and is having a hard time processing reality right now.
To recap: he won the Presidency at a relatively young age--the peak of one's career as a politician/community organizer. Everything else in life is downhill from there; and make no mistake: politics is his life. He managed to get elected and reelected; but his agenda was utterly rejected by the American people. Record defeats at the ballot box across the state and federal landscape: Republicans winning commanding majorities in Congress, Governor positions, and in state congresses too. Rather than compromise, he took shortcuts: ruling via executive fiat to circumvent a Congress that was elected to stifle his agenda and had zero interest in giving him what he wanted. It was pointed out to him that taking such actions wasn't a wise way to govern because it would just be erased by the time a Republican took the White House, but he didn't listen (arrogantly believing the Democrats would win the White House again).
Then, the Republicans win the Presidency. Trump undoes 75-85% of his executive orders within 30 days and rolls back regulations (largely put in place by Obama's Administration) and introduces a tax cut. Confounding all economic experts: the economy grows at rates not seen in decades...and has staying power: as companies continue to hire and boost wages. His entire Presidency--the pinnacle of his life's work--has been largely overturned by a man he despises and, worse, it's proven to be mostly successful.
In that light, his delusional rantings make more sense. His ego will never permit him to see that he was the problem the whole time.
I'm a graduate of the University of Florida College of Law where I earned the book award for Constitutional Law. That means I was the top student in the entire class.
I don't claim to know what the entire emoluments clause means. Nobody does. The only people who did are long dead. It was never covered in any con law class until 2016 because nobody talked about it from inception until then. It has never, ever, been litigated. What's changed? Trump. Or, more specifically, Trump Derangement Syndrome. The only thing I can tell you with any certainty is what it does NOT mean because we can base that on what the Framers did in the early days of the Republic. You know, like sell tobacco and cotton to foreigners. Clearly, that's not emoluments.
So what is our best guess at what it means? First, it's not even called the emoluments clause. It's typically referred to as the title of nobility clause. Here is the text:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
So Congress can't make you or me or Obama a Knight or a Duke. Likewise, the Queen of England can't make you or me or Obama a Knight or a Duke. So far, so good. The problem is the rest of it.
It is common in diplomacy to exchange gifts, sometimes extravagant gifts. You may have heard of the Resolute Desk? It is the desk in the Oval office. The HMS Resolute was a British warship that patrolled the African coast to intercept slave traders. That desk was made from the wood of that ship after she was decommissioned. It was presented as a gift from the Crown to the US president. Pretty cool, no? We have worked through this gift thing over the years. There is a cash value limit and most of the stuff the president gets ends up in the national archives. The president gives gifts too. Obama was roundly ridiculed by the British press for giving copies of his own speeches and copies of movies that would not play in European players. Anyway...
Right now, I'm making money off of foreigners. So are most Americans and nearly all politicians. For most of us, it is a modest 401(k) or if it is a pension, parts of it are invested in foreign companies. Like Burger King (Canadian owned by Tim Hortons) or Chrysler (Italian owned by Fiat). Maybe we own energy stocks that can greatly increase or decrease in value based on what the Saudi's or OPEC do. Maybe we own coal mines or pork futures that depend on Chinese demand. Are you familiar with the concept of a blind trust? That's how we're supposed to avoid potential conflicts arising from such relationships. Of course corruption is rampant in Congress but that's the idea anyway.
None of that is emoluments.
Our best guess of what is meant by emoluments is a job that comes with a salary. Think of the mob guy who gets a job as a union rep for a sanitation or construction company; never show up or work, but draw a salary. The fear was that the Crown might appoint the Secretary of State to a job, say inspector general of Toronto or surveyor or something, that drew a regular salary. Think about it...no presents, emoluments, offices, or titles. Makes sense in that context, no?
The Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton's personal speaking fees aren't in a blind trust. The Russians actually needed Hillary's consent for the Uranium One deal. There is a clear quid pro quo. Was it corrupt? Probably. Was it emoluments? Nah. Check out Bill's speaking fees going up and down as his and Hillary's political fortunes waxed and waned. Clearly there is a relationship, a causal relationship, but not emoluments.
Foreigners have stayed in Trump's hotels for many years. His operation is (allegedly) in a blind trust right now. Foreigners are still renting rooms at his hotels. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want to allege corruption, you need to demonstrate that these people are overpaying (significantly) for the accommodations and that Trump is aware of it and is providing a quid pro quo.
I love it when you pseudo intellectual lefties latch on to something new and sprinkle it into your conversations to come across as brighter or "in the know". Lately it's been all about emoluments and gaslighting. A couple years ago it was Koch Brothers and privilege. microaggressions, cisgendered, trigger warning, toxic masculinity, people of color, etc.
The fact is you have no idea what you're talking about. You like to think you come across well but frankly you don't.
In your response, you're conflating two very different things. You're using emoluments interchangeably with corruption. Those are not the same.
Stop talking about emoluments. You sound like a fool.
If you want to talk about bribery and corruption, go ahead but first identify the quid pro quo or you'll sound like a fool anyway.
First of all, the unions killed themselves. Demanding lifetime benefits with high salaries for putting a nut on a bolt was not sustainable in any model ever. Just look at what public unions have done to cities. Chicago has been bankrupted by their union pension funds. Same is happening to NY. When you've got a firefighter retiring at 42 years old on a $110,000 pension with free healthcare for life you've got a problem that will not be fixed easily.
The "rich" you and your ilk are so envious of and obsessed with have nothing to do with how well you or anyone does in life. You're just envious of them and think that it's "not fair". You don't think, "Hey, if they worked hard, sacrificed and took risks to get where they are then maybe I can too!". Nope, you choose to say, "Those people who are wealthy don't deserve what they built.They took that money from the poor!". All of which is total horse$h!t.
We are in one of the most prosperous periods in our country's history thanks to capitalism. In fact, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and misery than anything in the history of man. Yet you and your idiot cronies want to destroy that because of your petty envy.
- Thread: What White America Fails to See
Hey Av, remember the last time a cute young black kid disappeared and it became national news? You know, like Caylee Anthony, Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lunsford, Polly Klaas, JonBenet Ramsey, etc.? All cute white girls. Adam Walsh too so I guess a cute white boy might make the news once in a while. No black kids though. I guess black kids never disappear, right? Of course not. Boys disappear all the time. Black kids, Hispanic kids, Asian kids, all different kinds of kids disappear. A very small number become famous. They capture the national imagination. It's almost always a white girl. If you had to guess, based on what you saw in the media, you would assume that 90% of child disappearances were cute white girls, mostly blonde. The other 10% would be white boys. But that's not true, is it? That's a distorted opinion based not on statistics, but based on what you see in the media.
Follow me here.
You think there is an epidemic of cops shooting Blacks. Even Obama said so. You see it over and over again, and it's always a Black person getting shot. Must be because of racism because you don't see White people getting shot. So my social media feed is clogged with agonized pleas to get rid of the racist cops, with rants about how it is open season on Black people, how cops murder Blacks with impunity, whenever they want, sometimes just for the time off and the book deal. No wonder Black folks are mad. But is this reality, or is it that the media loves a cop kills Black guy story a lot more than a cop kills White guy story? Remember the video posted here about a week ago about the K9 that nearly killed the white guy on his bike?
Let's look at some statistics.
So Whites are nearly 50% of police shooting victims, Blacks only 30%. If I randomly polled the American people (Black and White), how many would have guess that percentage? Of course, Blacks are over represented as a percentage of population, but they are also over represented in interactions with law enforcement so that's not as much of a disparity as you might think.
What's this? Police killings aren't rising? No spiking? No epidemic?
And here's the thing missing from that chart...the US population in 1976 was only 218 million. In 2013 it was 316.5 million. That's an increase of over 45% in population. That means that if we had the 2013 population in 1976, there would have been over 600 justifiable police homicides by firearm instead of 415. My point is that not only is that chart holding steady between 300 and 460, but on a per capita basis, it is going down sharply. So again, if you randomly polled Americans, how many would have guess that?
I know what my social media has looked like these last few days. I can't imagine how yours looks. Smart, educated people, white and black, railing against racist cops, talking about how the 2nd Amendment only applies to white people, how white people never worry about a routine traffic stop, white privilege, Black Lives Matter, a White attorney even used the hashtag #stopsayingnotallcopsarebad
The media gobbles it up. I don't think they are trying to start a race war. I just think they are driven by ratings. Elizabeth Smart gets eyes glued to the TV. So does Black man shot by White Police Officer (especially if unarmed). If the media knew George Zimmerman was Hispanic and his "gated community" was mid and lower class, you never would have heard of Trayvon Martin. If Caylee Anthony was named LaMichael Anthony, you never would have heard of him.
Out of a total population of 316.5 million in 2013, there were 11.3 million arrests nationwide. 458 resulted in justifiable homicides by police firearm.
But that's just arrests. Not many police interactions result in arrest.
Yeah, racism sucks. And yeah, racism exists. And it's hard, REALLY hard, to believe cold statistics in charts and graphs over graphic video plastered over the news media night after night. But ultimately, the truth lives in those boring statistics.
- Thread: Skip and Shannon on ESPN
I watched this and was disgusted. Sharpe was literally foaming at the mouth, the hate and anger that he has for Tebow is on the level of a rabid dog. The dude probably cries himself to sleep at night knowing that not only did tebow win in Denver, but now looks good at baseball. I get the feeling deep down he has freaking tebow penis envy or something. And he didn't "almost" blame whitey and white privilege for tebow's baseball contract. He did blame it. He also kept screaming about how you shouldn't be allowed to play one sport until you've "mastered" another sport. What a freakin tard.
He totally embarrassed himself and its great. I love it when these fools voluntarily expose themselves for the racist sycophants they are.
As if that wasn't enough, then he goes into his racist rant about the flag and white privilege.
Seriously, shut the **** up about privilege. A man whos celebrated, rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams, played a freaking backyard game for a living, and now gets to spout off about whatever he feels like on national tv has no business talking about privilege or oppression for that matter. If the country's so bad, pack up and leave. Oh that's right, you wont because this country glorifies you and allows you to make more money than you could ever know what to do with for simply having fun on sundays. Meanwhile the rest of us privileged types toil away trying to make ends meet, dealing with crappy bosses, and crappier paychecks, saving every extra cent to try and make our kids life's better, worry about the mortgage, the car payment, medical bills, and hope that we can save enough in a years time to afford a few days family vacation to disney so our kids don't feel like they've missed out.
Please tell me more about all of our white privilege.
Sorry if this should be in the PF.
- Thread: ESPN layoffs
Page 4 of 407