US Presidential Candidates

Daryl wrote: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.

Daryl, we disagree. I haven't spoken of bribes in the US or Australia. I spoke of how bribes are viewed in Indonesia. Feel free to conflate to your hearts content. It is not what I posted. As you said, different cultures, different mores.

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.

How does that follow? Since the moneys the Clintons received were paid to supply a specific service when on Foundation business, it's fairly easy to check if any was "diverted". That's not the case here. Furthermore, AFAIK these occured when she was a private citizen (yes, Trump is currently a private citien, but soon he won't be and he shows no sign of changing the situation).

PeterZ wrote: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.

I don't find that argument compelling in this case because at Trump's level of wealth, he could divest from his businesses at a massive loss and still maintain his current lifestyle even without income. That's discounting income from interest as well as potential income from books, etc after he leaves office.

EDIT - also, conflict of interest laws don't only affect outright bribes or things which look like bribes. For example, Deutsche Bank is currently negotiating a multi-billion dollar settlement with the US Justice Department over its role in the lead-up to the 2008 crash. On the other hand, Trump owes the same bank over $364 million*. The issues should be obvious.

*which would be a problem even without the specific issue of the settlement.

The actions I wrote of didn't happen in Australia. They happened in other countries that the Australian officials were negotiating with. Still very wrong, and I would imagine unthinkable in relation to any first world country's business, regardless of where the transaction occurred.

PeterZ wrote:

Daryl wrote: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.

Daryl, we disagree. I haven't spoken of bribes in the US or Australia. I spoke of how bribes are viewed in Indonesia. Feel free to conflate to your hearts content. It is not what I posted. As you said, different cultures, different mores.

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.

No, his post just rather clearly explained the difference and why it isn't. The foundation did not offer an avenue by which anyone could funnel money to the Clintons in order to influence them.

Trump's business DOES.

And it damn well WAS brought up before the election, lots. It was brought up in a nationally televised debate for cripes sake when Trump was pressed about putting his assets into a blind trust if elected... and he dodged and weaved and danced around the issue and ended up saying he would have his kids run things which he claimed was the same thing (that's actually the OPPOSITE of putting it in a blind trust)

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.

Then you favor writing a blank check for the corruption of the presidency.


It's that simple. There is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY to prevent influence peddling if Trump's business remains in operation while he is president. None. Because the entire planet knows where money given to that business ends up. Including especially Trump.

In. His. Pocket.

And if you think Trump's reputation would be destroyed when he "was caught" at corruption that would have happened already, that's a laughable statement. He went on national television and BRAGGED in the GOP primary debates about buying off politicians for cripes sake. He ran a scam university. His "charitable foundation" was proved repeatedly to be just a way for him to funnel money to himself. What exactly is your definition of "corruption"? Because the more you talk about it the more tempted I become to start quoting Inigo Montoya.

"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!"?

I suppose it fits.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!"?

I suppose it fits.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I think he was going for "I don't think that word means what you think it means", actually

From a local paper.

A 2015 tax return posted on the non-profit monitoring website GuideStar shows the Donald J. Trump Foundation acknowledged that it used money or assets in violation of IRS regulations — not only during 2015, but in prior years.

Those regulations prohibit self-dealing by the charity. That’s broadly defined as using its money or assets to benefit Trump, his family, his companies or substantial contributors to the foundation.

PeterZ wrote:Daryl, we disagree. I haven't spoken of bribes in the US or Australia. I spoke of how bribes are viewed in Indonesia. Feel free to conflate to your hearts content. It is not what I posted. As you said, different cultures, different mores.

Paying bribes to anyone, anywhere, is illegal like crazy in most of the first world. Getting caught having 2nd party representatives (i.e. contractors who are only nominally part of the company) paying bribes can easily mean a billion of dollars in fines. Plus years of self-flagellation to keep any government contracts.

I recognize it's impossible for Trump to divest himself of his business interests as is the typical practice for a President. He should at least make a good faith effort to separate himself from his business interests while he's President. By which I mean get someone to run the company that he can be expected not to talk to for the next 4-8 years, put the Trump brand on hold, and avoid major deals for the during of his term in office. It doesn't look like he's going to do any of these things.

But paying bribes is the only way to do business in much of the third world. No bribee, no workee. You have to bribe somebody to even let you talk to the people you have to bribe to get anything done.
-------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Imaginos1892 wrote:But paying bribes is the only way to do business in much of the third world. No bribee, no workee. You have to bribe somebody to even let you talk to the people you have to bribe to get anything done.
-------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Until the laws (or how seriously they're taken) change.

Defense companies offering bribes was fairly SOP in India, until their government did an in-depth investigation and crackdown several years ago. A number of large companies got blacklisted as a result.