Clinton V Trump - into the final three weeks.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

new thread. :)

"Hillary Clinton: "We Came Out Of The White House Dead Broke"

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: It has been reported you've made $5 million making speeches, the president's made more than $100 million.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, if you -- you have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education, you know, it was not easy. Bill has worked really hard and it's been amazing to me. He's worked very hard, first of all, we had to pay off all our debts which was, you know, we had to make double the money because of obviously taxes, and pay you have at debts, and get us houses and take care of family members.

SAWYER: But do you think Americans will understand five times the median income in this country for one speech?"

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/09/hillary_clinton_we_came_out_of_the_white_house_dead_broke.html

So what?

You should really read my post and refer to the concerns there. I explained what the "what" was.

I also referred to actual business by Clinton, not charity

'I also referred to actual business by Clinton'

What business? What do they produce?

Ok, I should have been more clear.
If Clinton had a business.

The question is: should the children take over? Is that good enough?

'I also referred to actual business by Clinton'

Why not? It is not illegal to run a business.

Sorry the above was meant to be in reply to

"The question is: should the children take over? Is that good enough?"

Many people create businesses so that their children can take them over in the future. I'm sure Trump's have been prepped for it their whole life. On the other hand, there is no business for Chelsea to take over unless it's being parachuted into a Goldman Sach's boardroom to give an entirely pointless speech for squillions of dollars that the taxpayers have paid for.

Oh, FFS.

Will you bloody answer if you think a President with financial interests and his own company should have his own children run his company and financial interests while they are President?
And this instead of a blind trust?

Can you tell me if you think that President will be capable of not being biased, internally and externally, in relation to his own financial interests?

Anyone?

Yes, I think Trumo is capable of not being biased.

Everyone in power has realtives and relations who are involved in businesses. They are not all "career politicians", but that doesn't mean that these businesses are favoured by them.

Lweji - if Trump starts doing what the Clintons have been doing then we will get rid. That's how it works. You get a shot at doing stuff properly and if you screw up, you are out. It's time for the Clintons to go. We all know what they've done. Trump may or may not perform. He has a chance to get things right. Clinton has definitely got things wrong. It's time. What on earth are you reading not to be seeing this?

Everyone in power has realtives and relations who are involved in businesses

Fist of all, it's not the relatives that would be involved in business. They would be running HIS business. Very different.

The problem I have is that Trump has been getting it very wrong already. See what he has done with his own Foundation and his University, and the lawsuits he has had to deal with.
He will do the same on a larger scale that will affect the US.
We can definitely learn from his past behaviour, as well as the Clinton's. And Foundation money, that is actually spent in good causes, or even speech money (that Trump also earns and with similar fees, btw) is not the same as amassing a huge personal fortune though, in many cases, dodgy deals, or regardless of who gets fucked up with insolvency along the road.

I really doubt he will choose for his company to lose millions for the benefit of the US, BTW. He should be telling people that it will go into a blind trust.

This has been really interesting as an example of internet debate. What is most fascinating is how the conversations go and in which direction. I would ask the participants one question - why would you vote FOR your candidate? Because everything on here has been posted about what is WRONG with the other candidate.

Apart from Claig, and to be fair, I don't think Claig knows how their sentences will end when they start them. But at least has shown some passion for their own candidate, rather than just against the opposition.

Lweji - if Trump starts doing what the Clintons have been doing then we will get rid. That's how it works.

But it isn't, is it? No US president has been removed from office by impeachment or conviction, and only one has resigned. The reality is that it would be very difficult to get rid of Trump before the end of his term, and he can do an incalculable amount of damage in four years.

He might - or he might not. Nobody can predict the future. What we do know, however, is the damage that Hillary has wrought - and that's the answer to the basis for a Trump vote. (unexpsoc - we don't know these people so can't make judgements about their motivations or character, and, given that we also don't know what will happen in the future, the only sensible reason to vote for anyone is based on the damage that they've managed to create already for a awful lot of people. Hillary loses hands down on this score).

fourmummy thanks for that explanation. It just seems really interesting to me that a decision on who to vote for in political office would be based not on issues, not an individual's outlook, but rather on what another individual has done in the past whilst not president.

fourmummy
but we know what damage Trump has done in his treatment of women, as well as in his own businesses.
Plus, we know he prefers to be "smart" and go for profit than think of the American people. That is worrying. Compare his own charity donations (very poor) to other billionaires (even millionaires). It's pitiful.

unexpsoc
:)
Hillary is not "my" candidate as such, and I do have to admit my preference for her is mostly because Trump is such a dire prospect.
My interest in this election is mainly due to how worried I am about the possibility of Trump getting in.
Having said that, I do identify with her values (the Democrats in general) in terms of facilitating integration and legalisation of illegal immigrants, improved gun control, improved natal benefits and support for women, better access to healthcare for all, and, yes, for the US taking a fair share of refugees.
I do think, at her core, she has the best intentions, even if she doesn't come across as the warmest of people. She knows the subjects, and she is intelligent. I do think she will be able to make difficult decisions, after balancing all the pros and cons. And I do realise how difficult it is to navigate foreign policy and foreign interests, and to make the best deal out of very difficult situations, even if a leader would rather send them all packing or intervene.
I am realistic about politics and how deep the mud is in Washington. I would very much welcome a true outsider with no conflicting financial interests, or no participation at all in the mud.

Thanks lweji for the explanation. I just think that even if Hillary does win, Trump has managed to push the entire democratic process into this (and I hate the term) "post-truth" realm where it doesn't matter what has actually happened, it is what you can insinuate about the other candidate. It is politics by deception. If your strongest argument for office is "look at the other guy" you really shouldn't be in the race.

Lweji - I do get it. People vote according to how they 'rank order' the negatives! As I see it, people aren't voting for what he might do. They are voting for what she has done.

To be clear, my opinion of Trump is based on what he HAS done. We have to go on his past and his past is dire too.
From what I've seen, Hillary is painted as much worse than she is, with many assumptions and, yes, lies.
Whereas Trump tends to be excused and mostly based, certainly in his case, in wishful thinking (what people think he might do) rather than based on his actions or even words.

Look, for example, at what he says (or rather, doesn't) he'll replace Obamacare with.

Completely agree with lweji

in fact i think i have agreed with every one of their posts so far

I am not being lazy but if everyone could just mentally add "and rufus" so it reads

lwejiandRufus

That would be very helpful

Joining late and hoping for some views. I've been watching the news all weekend, cycle after cycle of updates on the latest email scandal. So I wonder, why Hillarys team hasn't already published the emails in question, and why hasn't Huma resigned? She may or may not have cocked up, but surely 8 days out the Clinton campaign has to try and kill the story.

lwejiandRufusandBadKitten thank you very much.

'why hasn't Huma resigned?'

That would just make it a bigger story and would look like there was something going on. Instead, Hillary is saying there is nothing there and is blaming Comey, the head of the FBI, and saying why doesn't he release all of it, knowing that he can't because it has to be investigated first. But some people are saying that Huma could release it if there was nothing bad about any of it. Not sure if she can.

Some conspiracy theories are that this is a distraction done to turn focus away fromsomething worse to come from Wikileaks, but I can't see that because there are rumours that there has been a near mutiny in the FBi and many would have resigned. Also the New York Police Dept was investigating Huma's husband and there were rumours that if Comey didn't act, then some info might be leaked. So most people think that Comey had no choice but to mention it all now.

badkitten

I am sure that won't be a problem for lweji

Its not laziness...its just us bowing down to her superior posting skills

Do you happen to know her password and we can just change her nickname

Save her doing it

Just to get something straight: these were thousands of emails between the Secretary of state's closest aide, and the Secretary of state via a private non secure email server, which was not disclosed under oath by the aide, in a previous investigation, who had already lied about the private email server; and the device they were found on was on even in the aides house or her possession, but in the possession of a man from whom she was estranged, and it was a device that was being used for criminal activity.

I wouldn't want anyone to get their priorities mixed up.