US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:Another item we don't agree on. I believe Trump sells goods and services that does not require him to be President for those goods and services to be valuable.

FFS, who cares???? That isn't the freaking point.

It is INHERENTLY CORRUPTING to have a system whereby anyone interacting with the president has a channel through which to funnel him payments simply by doing business with his company while it being effectively impossible for anyone to prove their motivations for doing that business. Allow that channe to exist and it is pretty much guaranteed to be used.

THAT is why presidents divest themselves if anything like that and put their assets in blind trust.

How can you possibly not understand this?

At this very moment, many lobbyists are trying to figure out ways of planting news stories in venues where Trump will see them and react to them impulsively. Seeing how Boeing and Lockheed-Martin had their stock prices suffer severe drops after some late-night tweeting from the small-handed-one, this is definitely a strategy someone can easily cash in on.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Another item we don't agree on. I believe Trump sells goods and services that does not require him to be President for those goods and services to be valuable.

FFS, who cares???? That isn't the freaking point.

It is INHERENTLY CORRUPTING to have a system whereby anyone interacting with the president has a channel through which to funnel him payments simply by doing business with his company while it being effectively impossible for anyone to prove their motivations for doing that business. Allow that channe to exist and it is pretty much guaranteed to be used.

THAT is why presidents divest themselves if anything like that and put their assets in blind trust.

How can you possibly not understand this?

I don't believe that those who serve in elected office have to divorce themselves from their private lives to serve well. I would rather have elected officials own a business they can earn a living with than be more tempted to make their fortunes while in office. That is, so long as someone else runs the business while they are in office.

Had the Clintons owned a car dealership, I wouldn't car if they sold it or kept it while in office. If they owned and import/export business, I wouldn't care. Selling influence, I do care about.

PeterZ wrote:Another item we don't agree on. I believe Trump sells goods and services that does not require him to be President for those goods and services to be valuable. Clinton sells influence of someone connected to political power to foreigners through her foundation. Trump's business does not require his having political power to generate wealth. Clinton's foundation trades on political power as its primary attraction for donations.

Doubt we will ever agree on this.

PeterZ wrote:I don't believe that those who serve in elected office have to divorce themselves from their private lives to serve well. I would rather have elected officials own a business they can earn a living with than be more tempted to make their fortunes while in office. That is, so long as someone else runs the business while they are in office.

Had the Clintons owned a car dealership, I wouldn't car if they sold it or kept it while in office. If they owned and import/export business, I wouldn't care. Selling influence, I do care about.

Selling influence, you say? You mean, like the younger Trumps selling access to the biggest Trump for contributions to the Trump charity until someone realized how bad an idea that was?

Even assuming that the allegations against the Clintons for doing the same are true, at least they were never this open about the whole deal.
But do tell us more about how Trump is the best counter to corruption in Washington.

PeterZ wrote:He owns a company that owns and operates hotels.

If his increased reputation encourages more people to frequent his hotels and resorts, not a problem. If his kids take over the management of his hotels and they do not have confidential information unavailable to other participants in sector, no biggie. Could they gain an advantage because Daddy is President? Sure, and that is a problem. If THAT happens, pursue the case to the full extent of the law. The MSM will happily chase that story down.

These kinds of things are extremely difficult to prove, hence conflict of interest laws.

The difference between this and Clinton, is that the Clinton foundation received donations from people who engaged with the Secretary of State. The Foundation paid for almost all of the Clinton's travel and other expenses including hefty salaries. The Clinton's net worth went from (in her own words) broke to more than a hundred million while Clinton was Secretary of State. The degree that their Foundation was able to pay the Clintons increased while she was Secretary of State.

The Clintons did not actually receive a salary from the Foundation and had expenses paid for travel done on the Foundation's behalf; I don't see the ethical problems with that unless you want to maintain they were skimming off the top (unlikely, since my impression is that the Foundation paid the cots directly rather than reimbursing the Clintons). And as gcomeau pointed out, any such payments' size would be independent of the level of donations the Foundation received.

Any improved ability for his business to generate wealth that does not stem from decisions made as President isn't a conflict of interest.

Offering him income to curry favor with him (as some foreign diplomats seem to be doing already) is a conflict of interest. NTM that it gives an easy and almost impossible-to-prove channel to offer outright bribes.

Where was this argument before the election and Secretary Clinton's foundation was being discussed? By your post, her foundation is a conflict of interest.

In any case, I don't believe someone must give up his business to hold public office. Give up control for so long as he holds public office, yes. Give up his life's work? No.

In the end I believe that someone who uses his business to engage in corruption will destroy his reputation when he is caught. Trump will be caught if he does engage in corruption. the liberal media will see to that. Heck, members of the republican party will watch him like a hawk. As I have said before he won't get away with any shenanigans. If he pushes the envelope on acceptable behavior as it relates to corruption, he will lose his support with the electorate and destroy his business.

Again, the idea that we force those that would hold elective office to be totally beholden to government for their livelihood after they leave office is silly. Forcing the sale of a private business by someone who would hold office is doing just that. Surprise, we disagree. Keeps life interesting.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:He owns a company that owns and operates hotels.

If his increased reputation encourages more people to frequent his hotels and resorts, not a problem. If his kids take over the management of his hotels and they do not have confidential information unavailable to other participants in sector, no biggie. Could they gain an advantage because Daddy is President? Sure, and that is a problem. If THAT happens, pursue the case to the full extent of the law. The MSM will happily chase that story down.

These kinds of things are extremely difficult to prove, hence conflict of interest laws.

The difference between this and Clinton, is that the Clinton foundation received donations from people who engaged with the Secretary of State. The Foundation paid for almost all of the Clinton's travel and other expenses including hefty salaries. The Clinton's net worth went from (in her own words) broke to more than a hundred million while Clinton was Secretary of State. The degree that their Foundation was able to pay the Clintons increased while she was Secretary of State.

The Clintons did not actually receive a salary from the Foundation and had expenses paid for travel done on the Foundation's behalf; I don't see the ethical problems with that unless you want to maintain they were skimming off the top (unlikely, since my impression is that the Foundation paid the cots directly rather than reimbursing the Clintons). And as gcomeau pointed out, any such payments' size would be independent of the level of donations the Foundation received.

Any improved ability for his business to generate wealth that does not stem from decisions made as President isn't a conflict of interest.

Offering him income to curry favor with him (as some foreign diplomats seem to be doing already) is a conflict of interest. NTM that it gives an easy and almost impossible-to-prove channel to offer outright bribes.

PeterZ wrote:Where was this argument before the election and Secretary Clinton's foundation was being discussed? By your post, her foundation is a conflict of interest.

In any case, I don't believe someone must give up his business to hold public office. Give up control for so long as he holds public office, yes. Give up his life's work? No.

In the end I believe that someone who uses his business to engage in corruption will destroy his reputation when he is caught. Trump will be caught if he does engage in corruption. the liberal media will see to that. Heck, members of the republican party will watch him like a hawk. As I have said before he won't get away with any shenanigans. If he pushes the envelope on acceptable behavior as it relates to corruption, he will lose his support with the electorate and destroy his business.

Again, the idea that we force those that would hold elective office to be totally beholden to government for their livelihood after they leave office is silly. Forcing the sale of a private business by someone who would hold office is doing just that. Surprise, we disagree. Keeps life interesting.

He has already been caught, repeatedly, in pay for access as well as accepting bribery through the use of his hotels exclusively by foreign delegations, yet you still insist on his innocence even though you condemned Clinton for lesser but similar issues. This clearly shows that your support for the fraud is un-Christian and you should be cast out of your congregation. Either that or acknowledge your congregation is for the antichrist as support of Trump's behavior in adultery, repeated and unrepentant false witness, as well as fraud and 4 bankruptcies has clearly shown his followers do not believe in either of what Christ called the two greatest commandments.

ksandgren wrote:
He has already been caught, repeatedly, in pay for access as well as accepting bribery through the use of his hotels exclusively by foreign delegations, yet you still insist on his innocence even though you condemned Clinton for lesser but similar issues. This clearly shows that your support for the fraud is un-Christian and you should be cast out of your congregation. Either that or acknowledge your congregation is for the antichrist as support of Trump's behavior in adultery, repeated and unrepentant false witness, as well as fraud and 4 bankruptcies has clearly shown his followers do not believe in either of what Christ called the two greatest commandments.

If he offers gifts to foreign officials for services rendered, that may or may not be illegal. I hardly think it immoral if that's how they do business abroad. In Indonesia, forex, officials are paid some obscenely low salary by law. They are encouraged to make up any difference in salary their lifestyles demand through graft. They are expected to squeeze remuneration from those requiring their services. How is it immoral if one plays by the rules of that nation?

Because of that experience, I find an official who is not totally dependent on government sources for one's post government livelihood a very good thing indeed. Otherwise the incentive to become a lobbyist becomes inescapable. His purchase of access in the US has been through campaign donations. Legal and above board.

As for his sinning, we are all sinners. How is his sin any different from yours or mine? How is his sin any more an act of separating from God than yours or mine? He is not any different and as worthy of a chance for forgiveness and redemption as anyone else.

Your country your rules and values.
Now retired, I headed up a government organisation that spent a lot of money buying stuff from other countries.
We (I) sacked a couple of tenured public (civil) servants who crossed the line paying or receiving inducements from foreign officials, even though the amounts were quite small.
We had a scandal here a few years ago when our Wheat Board (semiautominous government body to handle our international wheat sales) was found to have paid bribes to Indian and Pakistani officials. Significant jail time for those involved.
PeterZ from our society's viewpoint what you are saying is so wrong and out there that I couldn't really remain courteous if I addressed it directly.