US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:Early in her career she used futures contracts to siphon/launder bribes. Her first entry into futures trading resulted in a sequence of perfectly timed trades that resulted in a handsome profit. I suspect that the trades were manufactured to hide a payoff.

Her foundation has amassed in excess of $100 million from donation provided by foreign nations that she could extend her influence to aid. The same is true for foreign companies needing State Dept. assistance. Was there a quid pro quo? Yes, but it cannot be proven. Even so, she used a private email server to avoid having her emails opened to scrutiny. Her system was quite a bit less secure, but she adopted it anyway to aid her in her influence peddling.

Provable corruption? Maybe, maybe not. Is the list of circumstances convincing evidence that she is a corrupt Politician? Yes, why yes it is.

You'll find no debate with me over the fact that Clinton is corrupt. That is rather clear. What is stymieing me is the idea that anyone could think Trump was *less* corrupt. We are talking about a man who's entire biography could be titled "A Not So Brief History Of Corruption".


Just hitting the highlights... and leaving aside the general skeeziness of the guy with the repeated charges of various sexual misconduct and racial discrimination and the like and limiting it to business/monetary corruption...

1. Multiple too-close affiliations with organized crime figures.

2. The Trump University scam the state of New York is currently suing him over for bilking students out of $40 million

3. Tenant intimidation in an attempt to empty a building so he could raze it and build luxury condos... he cut off heat and water, refused to allow repairs to be made to the building and ridiculously tried to sue the tenants for $150 million dollars when they complained about it.

4. Hiring and then abusing undocumented workers for building demolition.

5. Multiple violations of the laws governing how he was allowed to run his casinos covering everything from illegal loans to bribery to workplace discrimination (many of which also involved his mafia-connected buddy he now denies knowing).

6. Illegal anti-trust maneuvering trying to secretly buy out other competing casinos behind the SECs back by anonymously buying up all their shares.


7. Repeatedly stealing from workers and contractors by refusing to pay them for work performed.

Etc...



And then besides the general shadiness that characterizes his entire life there's also just the fact that he's just absolutely great at failing.

Casinos? Bankrupt... bankrupt... and bankrupt again.

Trump Airlines? Failed.

Trump Vodka? Failed.

Trump Magazine? Failed.

Trump Network? Failed.

Trump Steaks? Failed.

Trump Mortgage? Failed.

GoTrump.com? Failed.

If he's just parked all his money in an index fund that tracked the S&P back in the 80s he'd have like 3 or 4 times more money than he does now.

And THIS is the guy people want to hand the presidency to to see what he can do with it? The guy who thinks he can sneak around any rule he wants while always managing to fail anyway and only being a big deal because he started out rich enough that he can survive all his own screw-ups?

Who else is there?

Sadly HB, that's probably the worst part.

Bernie of course but I can't see either party letting him do anything.

The GOP seem to be trying to manouver Trump out of the way, but damn that could blow up in their faces.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

HB of CJ wrote:Who else is there?

The problem is not the candidates, it's the machine that produces them. I used to have high hopes for the Libertarians, but they can't get any traction in the closed-shop two-party system. What I really want is a centrist party that takes the long view.

gcomeau,

I have never argued that Trump isn't corrupt. My argument is that he won't have the number of facilitators that Clinton has to enable any corruption he does possess. The press will actually try to dig up wrong doing. Good luck if you think the press will be anything except complicit in covering up Clinton's wrong doing.

That's the bottom line for me. Trump will have vastly more antagonists scrutinizing his every more, while Clinton will have a press corps that are sycophants. If you would rather vote for a crook that has the skill at succeeding and the supporting caste to aid in her corruption than someone without those proven qualities, you are tacitly approving our current culture of corruption in government.

I simply cannot do so.

PeterZ wrote:That's the bottom line for me. Trump will have vastly more antagonists scrutinizing his every more, while Clinton will have a press corps that are sycophants. If you would rather vote for a crook that has the skill at succeeding and the supporting caste to aid in her corruption than someone without those proven qualities, you are tacitly approving our current culture of corruption in government.

I simply cannot do so.

FYI, I have absolutely no intention of supporting either one of them. Supporting the lesser of two clear evils is still getting on the "let's go to evil-town" bus. It's the slower one instead of the express but you're still getting off at the same station when the ride's over.

gcomeau wrote:
FYI, I have absolutely no intention of supporting either one of them. Supporting the lesser of two clear evils is still getting on the "let's go to evil-town" bus. It's the slower one instead of the express but you're still getting off at the same station when the ride's over.

We have to stop agreeing. I might have to change my opinion of some progressives.

I would vote for Johnson if I thought he has a chance of winning. I don't. Its either Trump or Hillary and I simply cannot act in a way that facilitates her being elected President. I just can't.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
FYI, I have absolutely no intention of supporting either one of them. Supporting the lesser of two clear evils is still getting on the "let's go to evil-town" bus. It's the slower one instead of the express but you're still getting off at the same station when the ride's over.

We have to stop agreeing. I might have to change my opinion of some progressives.

I would vote for Johnson if I thought he has a chance of winning. I don't. Its either Trump or Hillary and I simply cannot act in a way that facilitates her being elected President. I just can't.

Don't worry, I'm going to disagree with you now.


That "I can't let the other party win an election so I have to vote for mine no matter what" dynamic is what traps the US in this two party Sophie's choice.


I think a Trump presidency will be a freaking disaster. Clinton would be horrible but over a 4 year span she would do far less damage than Trump.


But that's four years.


The Democratic party continuing it's slide into ever greater levels of corruption does less damage over the four year time horizon but much greater damage over the next 30 to 40 years. And the bottom line is a long as people keep buying the "but you have to vote for whoever we put up because look at who the OTHER GUYS put up!" they're never ever ever going to reform. and that "look at the other guys" argument is always there. Every election. It's never going away.


So anyone asks me? I tell them vote Green party. Send the message your vote can't just be taken for granted because the Democrats have set themselves as the only "left" game in town even when they no longer even vaguely resemble the left on economic policy. And if enough people do it the message might even get through. Pretty much the only hope there is for reform. Because they're sure as hell not going to get their act together in response to being *rewarded* for putting up unacceptable candidates with everyone's votes. Nobody says "hey we won, boy we better rethink our positions now".


The wording of that argument may be slightly different when applied to the GOP, but the principle is identical.


(Do I think the Green Party has even a *remote* chance of winning? Nope. None. But the point isn't to get them a win, it's to get them enough support that they're a threat to the Democratic party's left flank and the prospect of losing enough votes to the Greens to tip elections scares them into reform)

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:"quote="gcomeau"

FYI, I have absolutely no intention of supporting either one of them. Supporting the lesser of two clear evils is still getting on the "let's go to evil-town" bus. It's the slower one instead of the express but you're still getting off at the same station when the ride's over."

We have to stop agreeing. I might have to change my opinion of some progressives.

I would vote for Johnson if I thought he has a chance of winning. I don't. Its either Trump or Hillary and I simply cannot act in a way that facilitates her being elected President. I just can't.

Don't worry, I'm going to disagree with you now.


That "I can't let the other party win an election so I have to vote for mine no matter what" dynamic is what traps the US in this two party Sophie's choice.


I think a Trump presidency will be a freaking disaster. Clinton would be horrible but over a 4 year span she would do far less damage than Trump.


But that's four years.


The Democratic party continuing it's slide into ever greater levels of corruption does less damage over the four year time horizon but much greater damage over the next 30 to 40 years. And the bottom line is a long as people keep buying the "but you have to vote for whoever we put up because look at who the OTHER GUYS put up!" they're never ever ever going to reform. and that "look at the other guys" argument is always there. Every election. It's never going away.


So anyone asks me? I tell them vote Green party. Send the message your vote can't just be taken for granted because the Democrats have set themselves as the only "left" game in town even when they no longer even vaguely resemble the left on economic policy. And if enough people do it the message might even get through. Pretty much the only hope there is for reform. Because they're sure as hell not going to get their act together in response to being *rewarded* for putting up unacceptable candidates with everyone's votes. Nobody says "hey we won, boy we better rethink our positions now".


The wording of that argument may be slightly different when applied to the GOP, but the principle is identical.


(Do I think the Green Party has even a *remote* chance of winning? Nope. None. But the point isn't to get them a win, it's to get them enough support that they're a threat to the Democratic party's left flank and the prospect of losing enough votes to the Greens to tip elections scares them into reform)

Sometimes the need is to say, "A pox on both your houses!" even when the results are unpleasant. The same method can be used on the right. BTW, take a look at "The Jerry Pournelle" chart, from his 1963 PhD dissertation on political science. It provides a two dimensional mapping for political groups, not just the one dimension of right-left. Sometimes, looking at things from another viewpoint helps make decisions. Jerry isn't dumb!

And!

What Franklin understood—and what modern crime statistics tragically bear out—is that if citizens do not voluntarily practice virtue, the authorities have no choice but to attempt to enforce it.

As Franklin explains, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Ben Franklin wasn't dumb either! It is worth reading "The Federalist Papers" just to get a good idea of the overall quality of our founders and the choices they made.

Is dropping civic virtue one reason why the quality of candidates has been getting worse

DDHv wrote:

What Franklin understood—and what modern crime statistics tragically bear out—is that if citizens do not voluntarily practice virtue, the authorities have no choice but to attempt to enforce it.

As Franklin explains, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Ben Franklin wasn't dumb either! It is worth reading "The Federalist Papers" just to get a good idea of the overall quality of our founders and the choices they made.

Is dropping civic virtue one reason why the quality of candidates has been getting worse

Yes, dropping civic virtue is indeed one reason.

I posit that voting for Trump IS casting a pox on Republicans. Not voting for Hillary is casting a pox on the Democrats. Voting for Johnson effects no significant message at all to anyone.

It is similar to a description I read for baseball in Italy a couple of decades ago. The writer describes how a beautifully arcing fly ball caught by the outfield after a loping jog was a thing to cherish for the Italian baseball fan. Not the gritty hustle that scores a run, but the elegant but fruitless gesture.

I understand that some people simply have the same aversion I have to voting for either Trump or Clinton. I don't begrudge any of you that feeling. To me voting for Johnson is knowing before I swing that I will generate that beautiful fly ball that allows the outfielder to look elegant and yet accomplish nothing.

Do I swing or wait for another pitch? You have my answer.