Trump illegally violated the Cuba embargo, report alleges - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ithon;51128783]what if both of them are running so that they won't be charged with crimes?[/QUOTE] Running for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, where you are expected to publish your tax returns for a good decade or so as part of demonstrating your honest character and where you can expect to be [I]thoroughly[/I] investigated by the US intelligence agencies (whether or not their findings are ever made public), is the [I]worst[/I] way to avoid being charged with crimes. A more practical option would be to just move to a country that does not have extradition treaties with the US. Especially when you consider that there even exists a specific word for removing a sitting President from office for criminal acts - impeachment.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51128801]I'm not a Trump man (I actually wanted Dr. Ben Carson) but he had a point in the debate when he said to Hillary, "You've been doing this for 30 years." He's right. If she's as experienced and ideal as everyone says, why has she been a Washington insider, since at least 1993, and yet all of these problems keep getting worse? [/quote] Trump was actually talking about energy solutions when he said that. [quote](If you can use that excuse for someone who lied under oath to congress as well as the FBI, I'm sure we can make an exception for someone who lied about a business venture nearly 20 years ago)[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1535557](Trump has done both)[/url]

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51128473]I, so fucking hate 2016[/QUOTE] att least it's making for an amazing south park series

Does this make America qualify as a kakistocracy yet?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51128536]"Breaking the law is okay when it's my candidate."[/QUOTE] I'm confused-- I thought people hated the embargo, thought it was stupid, and were happy about/thought it was sensible to end it? Now suddenly because this issue involves Trump the embargo is a big deal again, and his violating it was/is a horrible affront to our nation's laws? What an interestingly hypocritical approach to things, even more so because all it does is distract from Trump's other terrible qualities by creating false controversy over something that isn't actually that big of a deal. The Cuban Embargo was fucking stupid, and I'm glad it's gone; truthfully,[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1511404]looking back at the thread announcing its end here in SH[/url], most of you all were glad about it being lifted too. Please find a better reason to go after this man, like, you know, his suspicious ties to Russia that began in the 1980s and have continued ever since. Talk more about Paul Manafort; yes he's resigned from Trump's campaign, but how curious it is that those two would take up with each other in the first place-- especially since Paul worked with Russian puppet Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine, received millions from him, and to this day still has established ties to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs and gangsters. This thing with the embargo should be the least of your concerns. Stop trying to make it into a bigger deal than it really is, start focusing on shit that actually matters and warrants immediate attention. The importance of prioritization this election cycle cannot be stressed enough.

[QUOTE=Govna;51129214]I'm confused-- I thought people hated the embargo, thought it was stupid, and were happy about/thought it was sensible to end it? Now suddenly because this issue involves Trump the embargo is a big deal again, and his violating it was/is a horrible affront to our nation's laws? What an interestingly hypocritical approach to things, even more so because all it does is distract from Trump's other terrible qualities by creating false controversy over something that isn't actually that big of a deal. The Cuban Embargo was fucking stupid, and I'm glad it's gone; truthfully,[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1511404]looking back at the thread announcing its end here in SH[/url], most of you all were glad about it being lifted too. Please find a better reason to go after this man, like, you know, his suspicious ties to Russia that began in the 1980s and have continued ever since. Talk more about Paul Manafort; yes he's resigned from Trump's campaign, but how curious it is that those two would take up with each other in the first place-- especially since Paul worked with Russian puppet Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine, received millions from him, and to this day still has established ties to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs and gangsters. This thing with the embargo should be the least of your concerns. Stop trying to make it into a bigger deal than it really is, start focusing on shit that actually matters and warrants immediate attention. The importance of prioritization this election cycle cannot be stressed enough.[/QUOTE] But this is also serious. If a man running for president has no respect for rule of law, what does that say about his integrity? Heh, in addition to a million other shady activities and the fact that he can't talk for ten minutes without lying at least three times. In addition to all the stuff you listed.

[QUOTE=Govna;51129214]I'm confused-- I thought people hated the embargo, thought it was stupid, and were happy about/thought it was sensible to end it? Now suddenly because this issue involves Trump the embargo is a big deal again, and his violating it was/is a horrible affront to our nation's laws? What an interestingly hypocritical approach to things, even more so because all it does is distract from Trump's other terrible qualities by creating false controversy over something that isn't actually that big of a deal. The Cuban Embargo was fucking stupid, and I'm glad it's gone; truthfully,[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1511404]looking back at the thread announcing its end here in SH[/url], most of you all were glad about it being lifted too. Please find a better reason to go after this man, like, you know, his suspicious ties to Russia that began in the 1980s and have continued ever since. Talk more about Paul Manafort; yes he's resigned from Trump's campaign, but how curious it is that those two would take up with each other in the first place-- especially since Paul worked with Russian puppet Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine, received millions from him, and to this day still has established ties to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs and gangsters. This thing with the embargo should be the least of your concerns. Stop trying to make it into a bigger deal than it really is, start focusing on shit that actually matters and warrants immediate attention. The importance of prioritization this election cycle cannot be stressed enough.[/QUOTE] So wanting a law torn down means we're okay with flagrant violations of the law and that's hypocritical because...?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51129229]But this is also serious. If a man running for president has no respect for rule of law, what does that say about his integrity? Heh, in addition to a million other shady activities and the fact that he can't talk for ten minutes without lying at least three times. In addition to all the stuff you listed.[/QUOTE] He spent $68,000 looking around in Cuba, a country we had a dubious embargo going against that most of you people were glad to see go, and then he backed out of investing in anything or trying to start any kind of project(s). Big whoop. This is not something to be seriously up in arms over, the only reason people are is because it involves Trump, and it doesn't mean much as far as his integrity goes. Again, learn to prioritize. Attack things about him that actually matter. Don't drum up false controversy where there shouldn't be any; that's hypocritical bullshitting. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51129257]So wanting a law torn down means we're okay with flagrant violations of the law and that's hypocritical because...?[/QUOTE] Because you otherwise wouldn't care. You would otherwise see violations as being acts of protest, not a big deal because the law is irrelevant in the first place (and the embargo was very much an irrelevant artifact of the Cold War), or a combination of the two.

[QUOTE=Govna;51129214]I'm confused-- I thought people hated the embargo, thought it was stupid, and were happy about/thought it was sensible to end it? Now suddenly because this issue involves Trump the embargo is a big deal again, and his violating it was/is a horrible affront to our nation's laws? What an interestingly hypocritical approach to things, even more so because all it does is distract from Trump's other terrible qualities by creating false controversy over something that isn't actually that big of a deal. The Cuban Embargo was fucking stupid, and I'm glad it's gone; truthfully,[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1511404]looking back at the thread announcing its end here in SH[/url], most of you all were glad about it being lifted too. Please find a better reason to go after this man, like, you know, his suspicious ties to Russia that began in the 1980s and have continued ever since. Talk more about Paul Manafort; yes he's resigned from Trump's campaign, but how curious it is that those two would take up with each other in the first place-- especially since Paul worked with Russian puppet Viktor Yanukovych in the Ukraine, received millions from him, and to this day still has established ties to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs and gangsters. This thing with the embargo should be the least of your concerns. Stop trying to make it into a bigger deal than it really is, start focusing on shit that actually matters and warrants immediate attention. The importance of prioritization this election cycle cannot be stressed enough.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you but I don't want a president making shady deals in countries he's not supposed to be meddling with. If he's making deals with countries under embargos, I can't trust that he isn't make deals with other groups. We've already had issues with things like the Bush administrations providing weapons and money to terrorist groups. How can you be sure Trump, a self-proclaimed businessman-not-politician, wouldn't like to make a quick buck by selling to our enemies?

[QUOTE=Paramud;51129302]I don't know about you but I don't want a president making shady deals in countries he's not supposed to be meddling with. If he's making deals with countries under embargos, I can't trust that he isn't make deals with other groups. We've already had issues with things like the Bush administrations providing weapons and money to terrorist groups. How can you be sure Trump, a self-proclaimed businessman-not-politician, wouldn't like to make a quick buck by selling to our enemies?[/QUOTE] Shall we talk about the millions in contributions Clinton received from the Saudis? This is the shittiest election ever, and part of that is because of this "either/or" mentality people have rationalized for the choices we've been given.

[QUOTE=Govna;51129286]He spent $68,000 looking around in Cuba, a country we had a dubious embargo going against that most of you people were glad to see go, and then he backed out of investing in anything or trying to start any kind of project(s). Big whoop. This is not something to be seriously up in arms over, the only reason people are is because it involves Trump, and it doesn't mean much as far as his integrity goes. Again, learn to prioritize. Attack things about him that actually matter. Don't drum up false controversy where there shouldn't be any; that's hypocritical bullshitting. Because you otherwise wouldn't care. You would otherwise see violations as being acts of protest, not a big deal because the law is irrelevant in the first place (and the embargo was very much an irrelevant artifact of the Cold War), or a combination of the two.[/QUOTE] Well shit if you weren't here to speak for me I'd be speechless

[QUOTE=Govna;51129330]Shall we talk about the millions in contributions Clinton received from the Saudis?[/QUOTE] Shall we talk about literally every other fucking aspect of the Trump campaign?

[QUOTE=Paramud;51129302]I don't know about you but I don't want a president making shady deals in countries he's not supposed to be meddling with. If he's making deals with countries under embargos, I can't trust that he isn't make deals with other groups. We've already had issues with things like the Bush administrations providing weapons and money to terrorist groups. How can you be sure Trump, a self-proclaimed businessman-not-politician, wouldn't like to make a quick buck by selling to our enemies?[/QUOTE] Don't forget the Reagon administration and the whole Iran-Contra thing.

[QUOTE=Govna;51129286]Because you otherwise wouldn't care. You would otherwise see violations as being acts of protest, not a big deal because the law is irrelevant in the first place (and the embargo was very much an irrelevant artifact of the Cold War), or a combination of the two.[/QUOTE] Civil disobedience includes accepting being punished for the crimes you commit in the pursuit of showing that they are unjust. You don't do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time - [B]especially[/B] if you're a fucking presidential candidate. Trying to cover it up and keep it all on the down-low is not an act of protest. If this was an act of protest Trump would've announced it. I would be saying the same thing if I supported Trump, or if the names were switched and Hillary was the one fucking around in Cuba, or substitute [I]anyone[/I] else. Otherwise I'm gonna protest me up a crack dealing operation or something because I hear on the Internet that those are profitable. [QUOTE=Paramud;51129302]I don't know about you but I don't want a president making shady deals in countries he's not supposed to be meddling with. If he's making deals with countries under embargos, I can't trust that he isn't make deals with other groups.[/QUOTE] Like Russia? :v: [QUOTE=Govna;51129330]Shall we talk about the millions in contributions Clinton received from the Saudis? This is the shittiest election ever, and part of that is because of this "either/or" mentality people have rationalized for the choices we've been given.[/QUOTE] Sure, let's change the topic, great. No, wait, let's not. Stick to Trump. Defend this shit, don't wiggle over to Hillary land. Whatever shit Hillary allegedly or verifiably does or has done is irrelevant to holding Trump responsible for shit he's done. Don't be a baby.

[QUOTE=Govna;51129330]Shall we talk about the millions in contributions Clinton received from the Saudis? This is the shittiest election ever, and part of that is because of this "either/or" mentality people have rationalized for the choices we've been given.[/QUOTE] In case you don't know, there's no embargo in place against the saudis.

[QUOTE=phaedon;51128159]Just imagine the reaction a Democratic nominee would get for being all buddy-buddy with Putin and conducting business in Communist Cuba.[/QUOTE] Most left leaning people think the embargo was BS and should have ended a long time ago, soo....

[QUOTE=Ridge;51130122]Most left leaning people think the embargo was BS and should have ended a long time ago, soo....[/QUOTE] So they don't think the rule of law should be waived and forgotten about I find it so funny how this is the logic, it does't even hold up for 10 seconds man, how can you run with this, how can so many of you run with this same empty argument? The embargo was always bad. Yes, I agree with that. Any violation of the embargo is a breaking of the law, regardless of my feelings about the embargo. Yes, this is also true. A protest against something bad, usually involves suffering the consequences in order to make the point that the consequences are too dire for what the crime is. I would agree with that statement. The idea though, that because we don't like the embargo as "leftists" that we're okay to run a ramshackle operation with no respect for the word of the law is [B]pure bullshit.[/B] Govna and you and whoever else wants, can go ahead and say that any and all of us holding Trumps feet to the flame here are disingenious because we "were against the embargo anyways". I'm against something, but I am for the rule of law, so, which one wins? The rule of law otherwise society crumbles. Guess what? Trump should be subject to the rule of law, no matter how much you guys want to argue and wiggle out of the simple fact that he broke the law, and it's not fucking okay. But keep trying to sell it.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51130122]Most left leaning people think the embargo was BS and should have ended a long time ago, soo....[/QUOTE] Trump used his wealth, resources, and influence to bypass an unjust embargo. Did he use that as an opportunity to benefit others? Did he use that as an opportunity to open up trade or dialogue between Cuba and the US? What were his motives here? Trump circumvented the law to benefit himself and only himself. If an average american did the same thing, they'd probably receive a hefty fine or go to jail. In the same way I'm pissed that Clinton got away with the bullshit she pulled with her private server, I'm pissed Trump blatantly broke our trade rules for personal gain. How can a man that's campaigning hard on trade policy and against outsourcing be taken seriously if he actively outsources his own goods and violates our current trade laws with impunity? How can anyone look at someone that's actively participating in the behaviors they claim are ruining the country and think they're going to fix anything?

[QUOTE=Ridge;51130122]Most left leaning people think the embargo was BS and should have ended a long time ago, soo....[/QUOTE] If Trump wasn't running for President of the fucking United States, that would be forgivable. But if a man who would be President shows no respect for his own country's laws, he's scum.