Interesting how every reply avoids the actual question.
The topic was whether the same conflict of interest/insider trading standard should be applied consistently.
Your response is salary donations, losing money, and assassination attempts.
None of those address the argument. They're all reasons why you think Trump is a good guy. (I'm not saying he isn't. Just that being a goog guy isn't an actual argument for why potential conflict of interest suddenly doesn't matter or exist.)
If the standard is sound, it should survive being applied to people we like. If the standard falls apart the moment Trump gets mentioned, then we're not really discussing the standard anymore, are we?
This is one of the major reasons we get saddled with the term "cult". When we hold Trump to an entirely different standard than we do virtually everyone else on the planet like this, we might as well break out the sparkly gift wrap and pretty bows to make a lovely little gift of this as more ammunition for the liberals in calling us a cult.
One standard. Everyone gets judged by it. Why is that such a bizarre concept for people to grasp?
Instead of making a strawman argument that President Trump secretly ran for president because he knew he could make so much money insider trading, maybe you should ask yourself why he would do such a thing as someone who was already a billionaire.
Why would a billionaire risk his life, and put all of his real assets he created over decades of hard work, in jeopardy, simply to make a few more bucks by insider trading from the whitehouse?
You are not one of "Us." And no, we are not a cult.
Keep blathering and bloviating if it nurses your need for meaning in life. I could care less.
I never claimed Trump ran for office to make money from insider trading.
My point was much simpler: if access to privileged information and active trading are evidence of a conflict of interest for Congress, then the same standard should be examined consistently for everyone.
Instead of addressing that, you keep switching to Trump's motives, wealth, personal sacrifices, and character.
Whether Trump is a billionaire, donated his salary, or risked his life has nothing to do with whether the standard itself is being applied consistently.
This Just In!
Billionaire donates entire salary for both (all three?) presidential terms!
Billionaire loses billions in first term!
Bullets to the head! Drones in-bound!
More at 10!
Interesting how every reply avoids the actual question.
The topic was whether the same conflict of interest/insider trading standard should be applied consistently.
Your response is salary donations, losing money, and assassination attempts.
None of those address the argument. They're all reasons why you think Trump is a good guy. (I'm not saying he isn't. Just that being a goog guy isn't an actual argument for why potential conflict of interest suddenly doesn't matter or exist.)
If the standard is sound, it should survive being applied to people we like. If the standard falls apart the moment Trump gets mentioned, then we're not really discussing the standard anymore, are we?
This is one of the major reasons we get saddled with the term "cult". When we hold Trump to an entirely different standard than we do virtually everyone else on the planet like this, we might as well break out the sparkly gift wrap and pretty bows to make a lovely little gift of this as more ammunition for the liberals in calling us a cult.
One standard. Everyone gets judged by it. Why is that such a bizarre concept for people to grasp?
Instead of making a strawman argument that President Trump secretly ran for president because he knew he could make so much money insider trading, maybe you should ask yourself why he would do such a thing as someone who was already a billionaire.
Why would a billionaire risk his life, and put all of his real assets he created over decades of hard work, in jeopardy, simply to make a few more bucks by insider trading from the whitehouse?
You are not one of "Us." And no, we are not a cult.
Keep blathering and bloviating if it nurses your need for meaning in life. I could care less.
You're arguing against something I never said.
I never claimed Trump ran for office to make money from insider trading.
My point was much simpler: if access to privileged information and active trading are evidence of a conflict of interest for Congress, then the same standard should be examined consistently for everyone.
Instead of addressing that, you keep switching to Trump's motives, wealth, personal sacrifices, and character.
Whether Trump is a billionaire, donated his salary, or risked his life has nothing to do with whether the standard itself is being applied consistently.
You seem to be claiming Trump is insider trading, no?
We expect sauce around here. Make it spicy.
u/#spicy