• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

USA news & politics

Gather App
dirty harry said:
Hang on. Is Trump?

His 2nd term has just started, so we can't comment on his net worth after his presidency, because we dont know what will happen.

What we can assess him is on his 1st term...

The only president in US history to lose money in office? I think that's factual no, I'll have to check, but I'm very confident he's the only one in my life time.

So if by the definition of corruption, Trump is the only president not to be corrupt.

And yes, I'm being pedantic and argumentative, but I'm willing to bet they didnt mention that in the podcast, and that's why I dont believe the video trustworthy source. It's just typical anti Trump trash, that only applies their definitions to the last 5 odd months of his 2nd term, and not any other comparative situation, including Trjmps 1st term.

Does that make sense? Im rambling a bit
Click to expand...
What's losing money got to do with it.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
1. It's essentially people where they will constantly demand evidence and reasoning but have largely decided before it is even presented that they will simply deny it before demanding it again.

2. No, it's actually not fair in the slightest. If you had actually watched the video I gave you, you would have seen they do things like cite the exact laws and statutes, cite previous cases, use video footage of the events in question etc. However you decided to not get that far.

2a. How would you know how many claims were made when you refused to watch? In the above example, you could very easily check to see what the cited laws etc say.

It doesn't save you the time because I know you responded anyway so that's a lie. Saves you the time going through it? You just said you can't be bothered. The only thing you showed in the Kat Cammack case was that what she experienced may not be defined as a pregnancy. You didn't show anything else was false.

I've never claimed selling merch is corruption. Whilst it has the potential to be in a certain way, the act in and of itself it not corrupt. It's some ridiculous profiteering but tbh my contempt in that case is more with whoever buys it than him for selling it. I think on his side it's just egotistical and pathetic. Now why don't you explain, what has the corruption of other presidents got to do with whether Trump is corrupt or not?
Click to expand...

1. Well then that's false, someone posted a link recently about Isreals displacement plan, and despite being against the idea of a genocide previously, ive started to lean that way based on a decent level of evidence that displacing Palestinions is the goal, and that fits a definition. So ive gone from no Genocide, to potential genocide based on evidence.

2. And Ben shapiro does the exact same thing. Infact, I had a comparative link sent to me by a MAGA fans that I didnt watch fully, and only managed about 90 seconds. Pops up links to legislation, sources, quotes etc... it was still bull ****. It's why I keep telling you you and MAGA are the same, the echo chambers you frequent use the same techniques, they just differ in what the outcome should be.
EDIT:

2 (a) i watched enough, 18 claims in the 1st 90 seconds lol. It flew from bit to bit at 72mph, which is by design. Just because you dont recognise the manipulation doesn't mean your right.

I dont want to go back and have to find my 8(?) Point response on false claims you made about Cammack, the actions of Doctors, legislation etc,

"itself it not corrupt. It's some ridiculous profiteering but tbh my contempt in that case is more with whoever buys it than him for selling it" this is literally my stance, and is opposed to the first 15 seconds of the video. Benefitting personally is corruption, Trump selling fragrance is corruption.
And you ask a very good question, if you agree that selling fragrance isn't corruption, then why make the claim it is? Idealogical reasons, the same way they won't put the accusations made against Trump in context of usual presidential behaviours.

My stance is also, all politicians are corrupt scumbags, infact I used lobbying as a great example of it, pharma companies, financial institution, even education. Amazingly people around here get real right wing real quick and defend predatory loans and deceitful profiteering lobbying when I condemn them hahaha
 
Last edited:
McTallshort said:
I have absolutely no doubt it's happened with other presidents but you said what the current president is doing isnt corruption and that's what I questioned.
Click to expand...

No, i stated the definition given by the video isn't corruption. Selling merch, and benefiting personally is pretty much a staple of every recent president isn't it?

So the definition of corruption is tailored to suit a politically motivated attack on a specific person.

Now if you want to talk about lobbying, profiteering and Trump being corrupt, that's a different ball game, but when I bring lobbying up recently it was defended lol
 
Saintjay said:
What's losing money got to do with it.
Click to expand...

Because the definition of corruption given by the video is benefiting personally. Trump has been the only president to lose money during his term.

My gripe is that the video lies within 15 seconds and isn't trustworthy so I won't bother watching.
 
dirty harry said:
Because the definition of corruption given by the video is benefiting personally. Trump has been the only president to lose money during his term.

My gripe is that the video lies within 15 seconds and isn't trustworthy so I won't bother watching.
Click to expand...
So a cop plants evidence for a £10 but spends £20 at the bookies. There's no corruption because there's no financial profit.

I tend to also think most corrupt people don't file it in there tax returns or disclose it.
 
dirty harry said:
1. Well then that's false, someone posted a link recently about Isreals displacement plan, and despite being against the idea of a genocide previously, ive started to lean that way based on a decent level of evidence that displacing Palestinions is the goal, and that fits a definition. So ive gone from no Genocide, to potential genocide based on evidence.

2. And Ben shapiro does the exact same thing. Infact, I had a comparative link sent to me by a MAGA fans that I didnt watch fully, and only managed about 90 seconds. Pops up links to legislation, sources, quotes etc... it was still bull ****. It's why I keep telling you you and MAGA are the same, the echo chambers you frequent use the same techniques, they just differ in what the outcome should be.

2 (a) i watched enough, 18 claims in the 1st 90 seconds lol. It flew from bit to bit at 72mph, which is by design. Just because you dont recognise the manipulation doesn't mean your right.

I dont want to go back and have to find my 8(?) Point response on false claims you made about Cammack, the actions of Doctors, legislation etc,

"itself it not corrupt. It's some ridiculous profiteering but tbh my contempt in that case is more with whoever buys it than him for selling it" this is literally my stance, and is opposed to the first 15 seconds of the video. Benefitting personally is corruption, Trump selling fragrance is corruption.
And you ask a very good question, if you agree that selling fragrance isn't corruption, then why make the claim it is? Idealogical reasons, the same way they won't put the accusations made against Trump in context of usual presidential behaviours.

My stance is also, all politicians are corrupt scumbags, infact I used lobbying as a great example of it, pharma companies, financial institution, even education. Amazingly people around here get real right wing real quick and defend predatory loans and deceitful profiteering lobbying when I condemn them hahaha
Click to expand...
1. Then credit to you on that specific case.

2. The thing is people like Ben Shapiro have a multitude of cases outside their videos where it's shown his tactic his to simply talk as fast as possible and a history of lying. However I would not dismiss something purely because it contained Shapiro as long as it moved on to a more factual talking point. There is one where he talks with Stephen Fry I believe and the whole process was much better, likewise with Jordan Peterson.

2a. You realise that some videos the first segment is like a "contents" of what the video will contain? That video just posted is an hour long where no doubt the individual claims would be viewed. It's almost like you picking up a book, reading the chapter titles and deciding there is too much there to deal with and putting it straight back on the shelf.

Maybe you don't. That's on you.

Benefitting personally can be corruption, it depends how. Selling a book based on your experiences as president is not corruption. Having a foreign government promise to buy a billion copies of your book at 10x the price because they think you are definitely amazing and have no vested interests whatsoever you could help with? Definitely corruption.

I saw your comments and the responses regarding pharma and no, people did not defend profiteering or pharma at all. That was a massive strawman you made. What people on here actually said is that the fact pharma does lobbying does not automatically mean that everything they say is false and RFK opposing their claims must therefore be true by default. You essentially argued that RFK could make any unsubstantiated claim about vaccines and any response given by "big pharma" must be little more than corrupt lobbying by default. You're completely misrepresenting the arguments that were made.
 
Saintjay said:
So a cop plants evidence for a £10 but spends £20 at the bookies. There's no corruption because there's no financial profit.

I tend to also think most corrupt people don't file it in there tax returns or disclose it.
Click to expand...

I mean now your projecting the videos definition onto me, I'm against that definition, that is the literal point.

Using Trump being the only president to ever lose money, disputes the videos claim of 'the' definition of corruption.

You and I are aligned here. Did you watch the video?
 
dirty harry said:
I mean now your projecting the videos definition onto me, I'm against that definition, that is the literal point.

Using Trump being the only president to ever lose money, disputes the videos claim of 'the' definition of corruption.

You and I are aligned here. Did you watch the video?
Click to expand...
I don't think we are tbh.

I listen to the podcast at work every week. Same as Newscast, Amiricast, Rest is politics USA. Yes I'm that sad.

You can lose money and be corrupt. The financial gain doesn't have to be permanent does it.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
1. Then credit to you on that specific case.

2. The thing is people like Ben Shapiro have a multitude of cases outside their videos where it's shown his tactic his to simply talk as fast as possible and a history of lying. However I would not dismiss something purely because it contained Shapiro as long as it moved on to a more factual talking point. There is one where he talks with Stephen Fry I believe and the whole process was much better, likewise with Jordan Peterson.

2a. You realise that some videos the first segment is like a "contents" of what the video will contain? That video just posted is an hour long where no doubt the individual claims would be viewed. It's almost like you picking up a book, reading the chapter ***les and deciding there is too much there to deal with and putting it straight back on the shelf.

Maybe you don't. That's on you.

Benefitting personally can be corruption, it depends how. Selling a book based on your experiences as president is not corruption. Having a foreign government promise to buy a billion copies of your book at 10x the price because they think you are definitely amazing and have no vested interests whatsoever you could help with? Definitely corruption.

I saw your comments and the responses regarding pharma and no, people did not defend profiteering or pharma at all. That was a massive strawman you made. What people on here actually said is that the fact pharma does lobbying does not automatically mean that everything they say is false and RFK opposing their claims must therefore be true by default. You essentially argued that RFK could make any unsubstantiated claim about vaccines and any response given by "big pharma" must be little more than corrupt lobbying by default. You're completely misrepresenting the arguments that were made.
Click to expand...

Shapiro, and the nate the lawyer link use the same tactics as your link did, infact id say their target audience is older, as yours used Mr Beast style thumbnails, id argue your video is more akin to The quartering haha

Im not committing 50 odd minutes to someone I dont trust (Campbell) posted by someone who has lied previously, on a thread that gets hysterical at the name Trump, so much so the verbal abuse and name calling is more appropriate in a primary school play ground.

It's not like judging a book by its titles... its like going into a Nazi book shop, seeing the first page that makes the claim that 'the' definition of Jewish people is rodent like, and deciding that this book has nothing to offer me. Would you read the rest of that book?

Once again I 100% agree, benefiting personally can be corrupt, dependant on how that is. But again like Saintjay, you and I would be aligned against the claim made in the video that 'the definition of corruption is the use of your own political position to benefit personally'(close enough). Thay is not the definition of corruption, and by that definition Trump cannot be deemed corrupt, however I guarantee that specific definition will be used to explain why Trump is corrupt, with no context or background added. That is text book propoganda.
 
Saintjay said:
I don't think we are tbh.

I listen to the podcast at work every week. Same as Newscast, Amiricast, Rest is politics USA. Yes I'm that sad.

You can lose money and be corrupt. The financial gain doesn't have to be permanent does it.
Click to expand...

Not sad at all, @Welsh Exile had me listen to a 2 hour video on Isreal and its history and I loved every second hahaha I also quite enjoy some midwifery lectures, and podcasts on pedagogy.

Ok, let me be clear, is the official definition of corruption to benefit personally from your political position?

I disagree that's the definition of corruption, not by societal, international or Oxford dictionary standards.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
Trump claiming that the average American will have a tax hike if 68% if the current bill doesn't get passed... What a load of crap.

Massive tax breaks for the wealthiest again, reducing access and increasing costs of healthcare for the poorest and everyone getting hammered by tariffs, all as the debt skyrockets. This is just a big shift of wealth to the top.
Click to expand...
www.politifact.com

Trump exaggerates tax bump from allowing 2017 law to expire

President Donald Trump has said several times that taxes will rise by 68% if Congress doesn’t extend his 2017 tax law by passing his tax and spending bill. Taxes would increase if the bill fails, but by about 7.5%.
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

Already been fact checked and disproven, the 68% is roughly the number of people would get a tax rise
 
dirty harry said:
Shapiro, and the nate the lawyer link use the same tactics as your link did, infact id say their target audience is older, as yours used Mr Beast style thumbnails, id argue your video is more akin to The quartering haha

Im not committing 50 odd minutes to someone I dont trust (Campbell) posted by someone who has lied previously, on a thread that gets hysterical at the name Trump, so much so the verbal abuse and name calling is more appropriate in a primary school play ground.

It's not like judging a book by its ***les... its like going into a Nazi book shop, seeing the first page that makes the claim that 'the' definition of Jewish people is rodent like, and deciding that this book has nothing to offer me. Would you read the rest of that book?

Once again I 100% agree, benefiting personally can be corrupt, dependant on how that is. But again like Saintjay, you and I would be aligned against the claim made in the video that 'the definition of corruption is the use of your own political position to benefit personally'(close enough). Thay is not the definition of corruption, and by that definition Trump cannot be deemed corrupt, however I guarantee that specific definition will be used to explain why Trump is corrupt, with no context or background added. That is text book propoganda.
Click to expand...
Again basing the substance on presentation and not content. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, your personal dislike of a certain style has no bearing whatsoever on the content. None. Your refusal to even contemplate it says nothing about anything except you.

Fine then just say you aren't bothered in watching a 50 minute video and be done with it, don't make up some bullshit excuse to try to make out your reason is anything other than you can't be bothered. We get it, not everyone wants to watch a 50 minute video and that's fine but to try to claim the entire content of a 50 minute video is false from 90 seconds is just ridiculous. For someone who seems to happy to accuse others of lying, you seem perfectly content to do it yourself.

It's nothing like that at all but kinda funny you'd use nazis as an example whilst steadfastly refusing to accept any parallels between things the Trump administration and Nazis have done, dismissing it all as hysteria.

So you've got hung up on a loose definition but then refuse to see what the further reasoning is. Do you demand all definitions be exact and no common phrasing be used in order for everything that follows to be correct? If someone started with "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results", which was then followed by a detailed breakdown of how repeating action x would not yield different results, would you ignore all following analysis because it was preceded with an incorrect definition?

There is definitely corruption in the Trump administration. Whether it has happened before or not has no bearing on it now. Whether the correct definition of corruption is used has no bearing on it. Whether the source has a style you don't like has no bearing on it. All your reasons for dismissing these are things that have absolutely no bearing on the actual substance relating to corruption and other dodgy practices.
 
dirty harry said:
8 seconds...

Lied about the definition of corruption, to make it suit his position. He lost all credibility with that sentence.
Click to expand...
It's no wonder your so pathetically uninformed, you have the attention span and memory of a goldfish.

The definition Campbell came of with was textbook dictionary definition.

www.oxfordreference.com

corruption

"corruption" published on by null.
www.oxfordreference.com www.oxfordreference.com

Either educate yourself first or be quiet.
 
Could he be Chris Grayling? I've never seen anyone else claim to be such an authority on everything, fail upwards and yet never knowingly be right.
 
dirty harry said:
Not a defence, I literally posted above that if the definition of corruption is making personal gains, then every politician is corrupt. That's my default position, and I'm on board.
Click to expand...
Name any instances of Bush, Obama or Biden selling anything directly to consumers whilst in office. (With citations, not your usual crap)

Don't forget most merch is sold on behalf of campaigns.

I don't expect you to answer, because you are clueless.
 

Similar threads

Kiwiwomble
Local Club Rugby
Replies
9
Views
3K
Kiwiwomble
Kiwiwomble
Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
4
"Ten simple and effective law changes that should be made to rugby refereeing"
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Reiser99
R
Y
Blaming
Replies
6
Views
1K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
The 'problem' of Leinster 'dominance'
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
13K
higgik
H

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top