Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:04 am
So is it ok then? Or you just like pointing out the other side is wrong too? I don’t see an answer from you on that core topic just rather what seems like a “moral relativism” defense of the behavior. Can you clarify your position on these conflict topics? Is it universally wrong or not?
NO.....it's NOT ok. I don't belong to any of your sides, btw.
In other words, pointing out the hypocrisy from both "sides" IS the defense behavior.
Is the issue "conflict of interest" collective, (elected officials) or does it only apply to tRump?
When you say you are going to close Guantamino Bay (Obama) and DO NOT.....is that unethical, or just being a politician?
I can NOT answer your question without more clarification as to what YOU think a conflict of interest is and according to which rules/laws.
Does Roberts Rules cover it? House or Senate rules cover it? US law/code/ cover it?
But, in short, taats is NOT a defense of behavior. Quite the opposite. You wanna mis-remember the newness, and uselessness, of the S.T.O.C.K. act, be my guest. To ignore the long history that political parties get dirty in the conflicts of interest department.
You DO know who Mitch Mckonnell's wife is, correct? Interesting the Mitchie boy and zuckerbook of fecesbook fame BOTH own Vanguard 500 Admiral index fund shares. Who knew?
It's all right there in front of you........
Solutions? Add MORE US House of Reps (positive for a number reasons, starting with payoffs