Joe Biden is not the " king of kickbacks" that would be Sup CT Clarence Thomas

[Caswell Thomas]

and his relationship with FOUR Republican billionaires over the past two plus decades especially Harlan Crow current Chairman and former CEO whose father was Tramwelll Crow known as "the largest holding landlord in the USA" . This is particularly of interest as the price of rents and mortgages has steadily risen especially in years the Republicans controlled Congress, and, the neighborhoods and their racial demographics over the same period, arguing that multiple nationalities, creeds, races who lean away from Republican interests have been grouped together and deliberately marginalized for their anti Republican dogma; their rents and mortgages deliberately forced higher to push out those that Republicans don't want to vote against Republican interests.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Caswell Thomas

[WestCanMan]

33 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

This is particularly of interest as the price of rents and mortgages has steadily risen especially in years the Republicans controlled Congress,

Wow. That sounds sinister. 

Just a quick question, Caswell: what do you think happens when the economy gets stronger and wages increase? What do you think happens when working Americans start taking home far more pay, for example when Trump was POTUS from 2017-2021? 

I'll tell you what: people have more money to spend on houses, young people leave home younger and compete for apartments, etc. 

It's not a bad thing. A bad thing would be if the economy shrunk, kids moved back home, and rents dropped due to a high vacancy rate. 

Quote

and, the neighborhoods and their racial demographics over the same period, arguing that multiple nationalities, creeds, races who lean away from Republican interests have been grouped together and deliberately marginalized for their anti Republican dogma; their rents and mortgages deliberately forced higher to push out those that Republicans don't want to vote against Republican interests.

Nice try, but it makes no sense.

When Pelosi & co. convince illegal immigrants that they can come get some free shit, and tell them that there'll be sanctuary cities where ICE can't come for them, they come by the millions, and where do you think they go, Caswell Thomas?

Do the illegals go to Pelosi's gated community to buy up luxury homes, Caswell?

Nope. The only thing that the illegal immigrants do in Pelosi's gated neighbourhood is work under the table as nannies, gardeners, painters, etc. She can hire more and more helpers and pay them less and less, so Nancy's cost of living actually goes down when she brings in illegals.

So where do the illegals go, Caswell? Do you think that maybe they go to poor neighbourhoods and drive up the cost of rent there or am I crazy? 

If you're keeping score, Nancy brings in illegals, illegals work under the table keeping the cost of labour low, they go to poor areas and drive up rents, and guess who collects that rent money? Poor people? Nope. Poor people don't own a second residence that they can rent out.... The rising rent goes to.... PELOSI AND HER PALS! What a score! Nancy wins AGAIN! And she needs a few wins, because she's only worth about $150M and she must have some grandkids who need new shoes. Not shitty Oshkosh either. They need diamonds on the soles of their shoes. 

Do you think I'm wrong, Caswell? 

Across the rest of America illegals will work under the table in meat processing plants, digging ditches, harvesting crops, etc, and guys like Bill gates, who own a crapload of farmland, get cheap labour. Nancy wins again. 

If you're keeping score, when illegals come in Nancy wins, wins, wins and poor Americans lose, lose, lose. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You could try to make the case that wealthy Republicans and Democrats play good cop/bad cop, pretending to fight each other over immigration, etc, so that the Dems can bring in millions of "illegal immigrants" out of the goodness of their hearts, without full citizenship benefits (still not slaves) who need to earn money off the books so that they can avoid detection by ICE (still not slaves) which puts them in a position of very little leverage and therefor have to work at a reduced wage (still not slaves). The GOP fight against illegal immigration but they can't win at the border (they're the bad guys so they're not supposed to win, right?) but they can threaten deportation, and that means that the new kids on the black are happy just to keep their heads down and shovel shit, then go back to their crowded homes in shitty, dangerous neighbourhoods.

Hmmmm. How long could that go on. They'll eventually solve this border "problem", right? ?

 

You're not really thinking for yourself Caswell, you're regurgitating something that you heard somewhere else.

If you really think that bringing millions of illegal immigrants into America somehow "helps poor people" you might as well write "SUCKER" on your forehead. 

[NYLefty]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Wow. That sounds sinister. 

Just a quick question, Caswell: what do you think happens when the economy gets stronger and wages increase? What do you think happens when working Americans start taking home far more pay, for example when Trump was POTUS from 2017-2021? 

I'll tell you what: people have more money to spend on houses, young people leave home younger and compete for apartments, etc. 

It's not a bad thing. A bad thing would be if the economy shrunk, kids moved back home, and rents dropped due to a high vacancy rate. 

Nice try, but it makes no sense.

When Pelosi & co. convince illegal immigrants that they can come get some free shit, and tell them that there'll be sanctuary cities where ICE can't come for them, they come by the millions, and where do you think they go, Caswell Thomas?

Do the illegals go to Pelosi's gated community to buy up luxury homes, Caswell?

Nope. The only thing that the illegal immigrants do in Pelosi's gated neighbourhood is work under the table as nannies, gardeners, painters, etc. She can hire more and more helpers and pay them less and less, so Nancy's cost of living actually goes down when she brings in illegals.

So where do the illegals go, Caswell? Do you think that maybe they go to poor neighbourhoods and drive up the cost of rent there or am I crazy? 

If you're keeping score, Nancy brings in illegals, illegals work under the table keeping the cost of labour low, they go to poor areas and drive up rents, and guess who collects that rent money? Poor people? Nope. Poor people don't own a second residence that they can rent out.... The rising rent goes to.... PELOSI AND HER PALS! What a score! Nancy wins AGAIN! And she needs a few wins, because she's only worth about $150M and she must have some grandkids who need new shoes. Not shitty Oshkosh either. They need diamonds on the soles of their shoes. 

Do you think I'm wrong, Caswell? 

Across the rest of America illegals will work under the table in meat processing plants, digging ditches, harvesting crops, etc, and guys like Bill gates, who own a crapload of farmland, get cheap labour. Nancy wins again. 

If you're keeping score, when illegals come in Nancy wins, wins, wins and poor Americans lose, lose, lose. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You could try to make the case that wealthy Republicans and Democrats play good cop/bad cop, pretending to fight each other over immigration, etc, so that the Dems can bring in millions of "illegal immigrants" out of the goodness of their hearts, without full citizenship benefits (still not slaves) who need to earn money off the books so that they can avoid detection by ICE (still not slaves) which puts them in a position of very little leverage and therefor have to work at a reduced wage (still not slaves). The GOP fight against illegal immigration but they can't win at the border (they're the bad guys so they're not supposed to win, right?) but they can threaten deportation, and that means that the new kids on the black are happy just to keep their heads down and shovel shit, then go back to their crowded homes in shitty, dangerous neighbourhoods.

Hmmmm. How long could that go on. They'll eventually solve this border "problem", right? ?

 

You're not really thinking for yourself Caswell, you're regurgitating something that you heard somewhere else.

If you really think that bringing millions of illegal immigrants into America somehow "helps poor people" you might as well write "SUCKER" on your forehead. 

Your tap dancing has become long and boring 

[Rebound]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Wow. That sounds sinister. 

Just a quick question, Caswell: what do you think happens when the economy gets stronger and wages increase? What do you think happens when working Americans start taking home far more pay, for example when Trump was POTUS from 2017-2021? 

I'll tell you what: people have more money to spend on houses, young people leave home younger and compete for apartments, etc. 

It's not a bad thing. A bad thing would be if the economy shrunk, kids moved back home, and rents dropped due to a high vacancy rate. 

Nice try, but it makes no sense.

When Pelosi & co. convince illegal immigrants that they can come get some free shit, and tell them that there'll be sanctuary cities where ICE can't come for them, they come by the millions, and where do you think they go, Caswell Thomas?

Do the illegals go to Pelosi's gated community to buy up luxury homes, Caswell?

Nope. The only thing that the illegal immigrants do in Pelosi's gated neighbourhood is work under the table as nannies, gardeners, painters, etc. She can hire more and more helpers and pay them less and less, so Nancy's cost of living actually goes down when she brings in illegals.

So where do the illegals go, Caswell? Do you think that maybe they go to poor neighbourhoods and drive up the cost of rent there or am I crazy? 

If you're keeping score, Nancy brings in illegals, illegals work under the table keeping the cost of labour low, they go to poor areas and drive up rents, and guess who collects that rent money? Poor people? Nope. Poor people don't own a second residence that they can rent out.... The rising rent goes to.... PELOSI AND HER PALS! What a score! Nancy wins AGAIN! And she needs a few wins, because she's only worth about $150M and she must have some grandkids who need new shoes. Not shitty Oshkosh either. They need diamonds on the soles of their shoes. 

Do you think I'm wrong, Caswell? 

Across the rest of America illegals will work under the table in meat processing plants, digging ditches, harvesting crops, etc, and guys like Bill gates, who own a crapload of farmland, get cheap labour. Nancy wins again. 

If you're keeping score, when illegals come in Nancy wins, wins, wins and poor Americans lose, lose, lose. 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You could try to make the case that wealthy Republicans and Democrats play good cop/bad cop, pretending to fight each other over immigration, etc, so that the Dems can bring in millions of "illegal immigrants" out of the goodness of their hearts, without full citizenship benefits (still not slaves) who need to earn money off the books so that they can avoid detection by ICE (still not slaves) which puts them in a position of very little leverage and therefor have to work at a reduced wage (still not slaves). The GOP fight against illegal immigration but they can't win at the border (they're the bad guys so they're not supposed to win, right?) but they can threaten deportation, and that means that the new kids on the black are happy just to keep their heads down and shovel shit, then go back to their crowded homes in shitty, dangerous neighbourhoods.

Hmmmm. How long could that go on. They'll eventually solve this border "problem", right? ?

 

You're not really thinking for yourself Caswell, you're regurgitating something that you heard somewhere else.

If you really think that bringing millions of illegal immigrants into America somehow "helps poor people" you might as well write "SUCKER" on your forehead. 

So you believe Clarence Thomas is entitled to take all the bribes he wants, since it’s for your “team.”  Corrupt to the very core, all the way to the top.  

[Nationalist]

27 minutes ago, NYLefty said:

Your tap dancing has become long and boring 

Ya. No big font and no pictures. Gee...so hard to read...eh?

[Nationalist]

What a novel thread. Libbies showing their true selves in a moment of desperation.

"GET THE N!$$ER JUDGE!"

All the whining and burning of cities...just a facad. But you never REALLY changed your stripes...did ya.

[NYLefty]

35 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Ya. No big font and no pictures. Gee...so hard to read...eh?

Your drivel is indeed hard to read. That's why I don't ?

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, NYLefty said:

Your drivel is indeed hard to read. That's why I don't ?

Well...that and that once again, you were faced with a post with regular font size and no pictures...

[Aristides]

Interesting that you guys think it is ethical for supreme court justices to accept millions of dollars in perks from rich businessmen. Does that say something about your own ethics?

[Nationalist]

52 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Interesting that you guys think it is ethical for supreme court justices to accept millions of dollars in perks from rich businessmen. Does that say something about your own ethics?

Perhaps if Ol' Joe's payolla were not so vehemently excused by you Libbies, there'd be more interest in cooperation.

But you just wanna play pot/kettle so...bye bye.

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Perhaps if Ol' Joe's payolla were not so vehemently excused by you Libbies, there'd be more interest in cooperation.

But you just wanna play pot/kettle so...bye bye.

Who is excusing anything? If it can be proved that Biden took money for favours when he was in office, by all means prosecute him.

That aside, don't you think supreme court justices should be held to higher ethical standard than politicians? Would you still blow this off if it was a Democrat appointed justice?

Edited August 11, 2023 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

24 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Who is excusing anything? If it can be proved that Biden took money for favours when he was in office, by all means prosecute him.

That aside, don't you think supreme court justices should be held to higher ethical standard than politicians? Would you still blow this off if it was a Democrat appointed justice?

Don't be so naive. Thomas is allowed to have friends. It appears his friends are wealthy and like to take him and his wife on trips. As far as I can tell, no money has exchanged hands and no agreements for services has been uncovered.

So...what would you like to charge him with? Having wealthy friends?

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Don't be so naive. Thomas is allowed to have friends. It appears his friends are wealthy and like to take him and his wife on trips. As far as I can tell, no money has exchanged hands and no agreements for services has been uncovered.

So...what would you like to charge him with? Having wealthy friends?

Doesn't sound like he broke any laws but I guess ethics aren't an important qualification to be a SCJ in you world. Not surprising you are a Trump supporter.

Are you stupid enough to think cases were never discussed? They may not have been cases they were involved in but could have had outcomes that would affect their businesses. That 4 billionaires gave Thomas millions worth of perks just because they think he is a great guy? That Thomas was too stupid and lacking in ethics that he didn't know he was compromising himself?

[Nationalist]

44 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Doesn't sound like he broke any laws but I guess ethics aren't an important qualification to be a SCJ in you world. Not surprising you are a Trump supporter.

The obvious answer to this BS is...Ketanji Brown Jackson.

46 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Are you stupid enough to think cases were never discussed? They may not have been cases they were involved in but could have had outcomes that would affect their businesses. That 4 billionaires gave Thomas millions worth of perks just because they think he is a great guy? That Thomas was too stupid and lacking in ethics that he didn't know he was compromising himself?

Yes well...as you Libbies are so fond of saying...

There is no evidence that Thomas broke any laws. "Duh".

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

The obvious answer to this BS is...Ketanji Brown Jackson.

How is it obvious? When has she taken millions of dollars worth of perks from anyone? 

Quote

Yes well...as you Libbies are so fond of saying...

There is no evidence that Thomas broke any laws. "Duh".

Actually he has violated Federal Financial Disclosure Laws which require among other things.

Quote

gifts and reimbursements (although filers do not have to report gifts received from relatives or food, lodging, or entertainment “received as personal hospitality of an individual”);

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any will to enforce penalties for violating them

F**k ethics. F**k laws, as long as he is on our team. That is how low the US has sunk.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How is it obvious? When has she taken millions of dollars worth of perks from anyone? 

Actually he has violated Federal Financial Disclosure Laws which require among other things.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any will to enforce penalties for violating them

F**k ethics. F**k laws, as long as he is on our team. That is how low the US has sunk.

Well...2 points.

1. Are you saying a SCOTUS justice can't have friends?

2. It would be you Libbies who have sunk things to beneath contempt.

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Well...2 points.

1. Are you saying a SCOTUS justice can't have friends?

2. It would be you Libbies who have sunk things to beneath contempt.

Of course he can have friends but he can't receive hundreds of thousands worth of perks without reporting them. It's the law. 

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What a novel thread. Libbies showing their true selves in a moment of desperation.

"GET THE N!$$ER JUDGE!"

All the whining and burning of cities...just a facad. But you never REALLY changed your stripes...did ya.

At least you used an entirely accurate $$ to reference him. LMAO

Since he takes bribes to stay in the SCOTUS when he's always wanted to be very wealthy.

That way he can have job security AND live the big bucks lifestyle. WIN-WIN, right? Damn the ethics from you, as usual.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Of course he can have friends but he can't receive hundreds of thousands worth of perks without reporting them. It's the law. 

It seems its not because...nobody on the SCOTUS seems to care

 

[Nationalist]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

At least you used an entirely accurate $$ to reference him. LMAO

Since he takes bribes to stay in the SCOTUS when he's always wanted to be very wealthy.

That way he can have job security AND live the big bucks lifestyle. WIN-WIN, right? Damn the ethics from you, as usual.

Hey...get the other SCOTUS judges to do something. No?

Bye bye...

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It seems its not because...nobody on the SCOTUS seems to care

 

That's all that counts right. Ethics be dammed.

This is one area where we should be proud to be Canadian

 

[robosmith]

55 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Hey...get the other SCOTUS judges to do something. No?

Bye bye...

Yeah, I don't believe they'll ever stop you from defending the unethical/fraud. Not your prob, right?

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

That's all that counts right. Ethics be dammed.

This is one area where we should be proud to be Canadian

 

Meh...ya gits wut ya pays fer.

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yeah, I don't believe they'll ever stop you from defending the unethical/fraud. Not your prob, right?

You have zero credibility...to be speaking of ethics or fraud.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Nationalist

[robosmith]

36 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Meh...ya gits wut ya pays fer.

You have zero credibility...to be speaking of ethics or fraud.

I can see the lack of it in you a mile away.

OTOH, you have never identified me defending anyone as fraudulent as 78 indicted charges Trump.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I can see the lack of it in you a mile away.

OTOH, you have never identified me defending anyone as fraudulent as 78 indicted charges Trump.

?