• Gingrich: Congress should change ethics laws for Trump
    83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557394]How exactly am I being hypocritical about this?[/QUOTE] Don't play dumb, Tudd. You people really do just try to frustrate everyone into not debating. Can't prove themselves right, so they just drown every other voice out.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557420]You're saying "Yes lets change the rules so he can't break them" meanwhile lambasting Clinton for things that while shady weren't actually against the rules. So you're down with changing the rules so your guy doesn't break them, but you're also down with going after someone based on relatively flimsy charges It's pure hypocrisy. It's okay you can't see that. But that is what it is.[/QUOTE] I never said I wanted to change the rules though. I actually been asking for more transparency and oversight in this.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557447]I never said I wanted to change the rules though. I actually been asking for more transparency and oversight in this.[/QUOTE] Gingrich isn't asking for more. He's asking for less.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557447]I never said I wanted to change the rules though.[/QUOTE] You didn't. Newt said it, and you agreed with him. [QUOTE=Tudd;51556972] The point that I bring to this discussion is that Gingrich actually pointing this out is good thing, yet some people on here are just like, "Fuck you Gingrich." [/QUOTE] So what's the next trick? That we didn't understand what you meant by saying that he is pointing out that changing the rules for the Trump Administration is a "good thing"? [QUOTE=Tudd;51557460]Actually I feel like I am having quite the civil discourse.[/QUOTE] What a curious way to go about it, then.
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51557427]Don't play dumb, Tudd. You people really do just try to frustrate everyone into not debating. Can't prove themselves right, so they just drown every other voice out.[/QUOTE] Actually I feel like I am having quite the civil discourse.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51556693]Newt Gingrich actually does the justice of pointing out a potential problem yall agree needs insight, and yet some of the people on here are just saying immediately fuck Gingrich. Classic SH [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] [/QUOTE] This is what you said Tudd. Gingrich is trying to loosen the regulations and restrictions Trump may face. You agreed this is an issue worth looking into. So, do you really think this is an issue or have you just suddenly changed your tune?
[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51557458] So what's the next trick? That we didn't understand what you meant by saying that he is pointing out that changing the rules for the Trump Administration is a "good thing"?[/QUOTE] There really is no trick, the majority of his argument is that Trump needs more oversight, something we can all agree on. Now he says there "should" be a change of some rules because Trump isn't traditional in a political sense. I generally don't agree in changing the rules, but since Gingrich doesn't give a specific example really, I don't know what he is actually proposing. There is this though, [quote]Gingrich also argued that Americans shouldn’t be surprised that there are certain changes that Trump shouldn’t be expected to make, including giving up licensing on his iconic last name or his communications with his adult sons, Eric and Donald Jr., who are slated to take over the business. “You can’t say the Trump Tower is not the Trump Tower, or the Trump hotel is not the Trump hotel. And you can’t say that the kids who run it aren’t his children,” Gingrich said.[/quote] Something like that is pretty fair imo. You can't expect Trump to have his businesses drop their original names.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557488]Something like that is pretty fair imo. You can't expect Trump to have his businesses drop their original names.[/QUOTE] You know the company doesn't have to be run by a Trump to still be named Trump.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557469]This is what you said Tudd. Gingrich is trying to loosen the regulations and restrictions Trump may face. You agreed this is an issue worth looking into. So, do you really think this is an issue or have you just suddenly changed your tune?[/QUOTE] Reread it, cause that is not me agreeing with Gingrich's loosening of regulations. It's me agreeing with a part of what said Gingrich said in that, [quote]The former Georgia GOP lawmaker did concede Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress can’t ignore the potential ethical challenges facing the president, including the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits U.S. government employees from taking payments from foreign governments or the companies they run. “It’s a very real problem,” Gingrich said. “I don’t think this is something minor. I think certainly in an age that people are convinced that government corruption is widespread both in the U.S. and around the world, you can’t just shrug and walk off from it.”[/quote] Also you probably should include the quote to the post I made. That was integral to the point I was making and you quoting me without it is disingenuous.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557488]There really is no trick, the majority of his argument is that Trump needs more oversight, something we can all agree on. Now he says there "should" be a change of some rules because Trump isn't traditional in a political sense. I generally don't agree in changing the rules, but since Gingrich doesn't give a specific example really, I don't know what he is actually proposing. There is this though, Something like that is pretty fair imo. You can't expect Trump to have his businesses drop their original names.[/QUOTE] If Obama, had [B]his[/B] name as a business, as a brand, this wouldn't ever even be considered for him. The idea that it's Trump so it's fine, is fucking absurd. We've had 8 years of Gingrich, and the fucking garbage he represents in the system causing issues, and you really think he's saying to make anything better with this? No. Fuck no. He's a self serving shitlord, has been for decades, will continue to be one for the remainder of his time on this planet.
[QUOTE=The Vman;51557509]You know the company doesn't have to be run by a Trump to still be named Trump.[/QUOTE] Exactly, but according to Gingrich these are one of the changes people might ask for. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557511]If Obama, had [B]his[/B] name as a business, as a brand, this wouldn't ever even be considered for him. The idea that it's Trump so it's fine, is fucking absurd. [/QUOTE] Case in point on that name issue.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557511]If Obama, had [B]his[/B] name as a business, as a brand, this wouldn't ever even be considered for him. The idea that it's Trump so it's fine, is fucking absurd.[/QUOTE] These kinds of hypothetical arguments are completely useless. If Obama had half the private sector notoriety as Donald Trump, he might have been a completely different President. It's impossible to know.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51557576]These kinds of hypothetical arguments are completely useless. If Obama had half the private sector notoriety as Donald Trump, he might have been a completely different President. It's impossible to know.[/QUOTE] I don't believe it is when Obama was the target for a particular method of blocking that the republicans used for years based on who he was his name and his heritage. Historical revisionism will be the death of America.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557590]I don't believe it is when Obama was the target for a particular method of blocking that the republicans used for years based on who he was his name and his heritage. Historical revisionism will be the death of America.[/QUOTE] Who's trying to rewrite history? Is there some secret conspiracy I don't know about?
[QUOTE=Chonch;51557609]Who's trying to rewrite history? Is there some secret conspiracy I don't know about?[/QUOTE] You're acting as if the 4 years of "Lets make Obama a one term president" and the subsequent 4 years of rejecting and fighting tooth and nail based on who Obama was and how much it bothered them that he was president didn't happen. They did. From the birther movement through to rejecting his bipartisan outreaches which have been revised by the right to look like Obama never did act bipartisan when he clearly did and the republicans destroyed the healthcare bill, Republicans then blame Obama for a broken healthcare bill that they broke, but they say he could have just rammed it through due to his Dem hold over the house and senate at the time. But he didn't do that as an act of bipartisanship. But that's not how the right views it. As an example of historical revisionism performed by the media, this is a perfect one. Now it honestly seems like that has extended far beyond into the realm of his whole presidency. Gingrich himself was hilariously partisan and deceptive during the last 8 years as a method to make Obama look bad for the next presidential election. Acting like he wouldn't have made a special effort to such down Obama in a circumstance like the hypothetical previously mentioned by myself is, as far as I can tell, a bit ridiculous. Yes it is speculation, but it's not baseless.
Years from now, when we see more threads on SH about Trump doing something bad, the same people will still go "Clinton would have done it!", as if that serves as a legitimate justification for whatever the current President is doing. Truly sensational and hilarious.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;51557144]Sure glad we didn't vote that CRIMINAL KILLARY CLINTON in!!![/QUOTE] Even if she was a criminal we could have just changed the law ez
"its not corruption and shitbaggery and insane asylum worthy if its trump!!! only if clinton does something disagreeable is it considered a crime against humanity"
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51558665]"its not corruption and shitbaggery and insane asylum worthy if its trump!!! only if clinton does something disagreeable is it considered a crime against humanity"[/QUOTE] You really need to take a step back and reevaluate, if you actually believe this is how supporters of the President-elect think.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51558969]You really need to take a step back and reevaluate, if you actually believe this is how supporters of the President-elect think.[/QUOTE] Well, if they don't, then feel free to prove me wrong but most people didn't vote for Hillary because they thought she was some kind of super corrupt lizard who would make us go to war. Feel free to prove me wrong though and paint Trump in a better light than her after all that he's done so far.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51556242]this guy really does have an appropriate name doesn't he[/QUOTE] Newt Gingrich is a slimy fucking cunt and should be ignored and never taken seriously, or you know, he could just die already but he's such a fuckup he can't even do that right
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.