What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

I guess we should just go back to the time when the parties simply chose the nominee instead of having primaries.  Much less corrupt.

Well right. The primaries were introduced to help stop that problem. Also: electing Senators. But of course that introduces different forms of corruption.

[Valmy]

Who said every candidate ever was terrible? Where did that come from?

You did. You said

If you always count on the alternative being terrible enough that your own nearly terrible candidate is slightly better

Or what did you mean by 'always' there?

I think Clinton was a terrible candidate.

That turned out to be the case. But I think she would have been a pretty good President. Unfortunately the skill sets do not overlap much.

I think there have been plenty of non-terrible candidates. I think the only one creating a strawman here is you.

You said that is always how it goes but it did not work this time.

Hell, in this very election there were some decent candidates. None of them were Dems though, because the DNC and the Clintons made sure that there was only one viable Dem candidate.

The only candidate I saw the DNC opposing was a dangerous far left socialist demagogue. I am sure the DNC would have been overjoyed had O'Malley or Biden or whomever had won the nomination. But it is not like the Dems have a deep bench right now. Pelosi is still Speaker for godsake.

[HVC]

I don't think the Clintons are corrupt on the scale of taking Russian money to influence policy (How is this not a bigger deal in the states? what happened to your commie/ruskie hating ways) but I would have to think that the possibility of hundreds of millions of future revenue would have to weigh heavily on a politicians decision making process while in office. Why rock the boat and when you'd lose out on millions?

[Grinning_Colossus]

How is this not a bigger deal in the states? what happened to your commie/ruskie hating ways

We've become accustomed to the idea that taking money from special interests is fine if there's no explicit quid pro quo.

[frunk]

Why rock the boat and when you'd lose out on millions?

It depends on what motivates a politician.  I don't think the Clintons are particularly motivated by money.  Power, maybe, but not money.  It helps that at least at one point when the Clintons were younger they had some idealism.

[Berkut]

How is this not a bigger deal in the states? what happened to your commie/ruskie hating ways

We've become accustomed to the idea that taking money from special interests is fine if there's no explicit quid pro quo.

If you cannot PROVE that there is corruption, then there is nothing to worry about.

Of course, that standard doesn't apply to Trump. In his case, as long as it looks bad, we can assume it is absolutely terrible.

You cannot PROVE that the Chinese making deal with Ivanka has influenced Trump! So any claim that it is corruption is ridiculous.

And those millions that Russians have poured into his bank account buying nearly worthless real estate? Can you prove that changed how he deals with Russia? If not, it is fine.

[Berkut]

Why rock the boat and when you'd lose out on millions?

It depends on what motivates a politician.  I don't think the Clintons are particularly motivated by money.  Power, maybe, but not money.  It helps that at least at one point when the Clintons were younger they had some idealism.

For people not motivated by money, they sure have managed to amass a rather astounding amount of it.

[HVC]

Why rock the boat and when you'd lose out on millions?

It depends on what motivates a politician.  I don't think the Clintons are particularly motivated by money.  Power, maybe, but not money.  It helps that at least at one point when the Clintons were younger they had some idealism.

This isn't pocket change, this is millions of dollars.

[Admiral Yi]

The Smoking Gun may not be a very emotionally satisfying test of corruption, but it is realistic and reasonable.  Otherwise we would be in a situation where future or past politicians would not be allowed to have any other income, never be allowed to have any other job before or after holding office.

[HVC]

You can go by degree. since, lets say carter, which politician has cashed out the most (taking into account inflation). The greater the outlier the more like the corruption (soft though it may be). Now I don't know the Clintons cashed out the most, but it seems like a fairly good indicator.

[Admiral Yi]

You can go by degree. since, lets say carter, which politician has cashed out the most (taking into account inflation). The greater the outlier the more like the corruption (soft though it may be). Now I don't know the Clintons cashed out the most, but it seems like a fairly good indicator.

So something like 2 times the moving average of the bribes received by the last five presidents means you are corrupt, anything less and you're not?

[Zanza]

@realDonaldTrump
The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there! We either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!

So he seriously considers to shutdown his own administration if he doesn't get money for his silly policies. That must be first.

[HVC]

You can go by degree. since, lets say carter, which politician has cashed out the most (taking into account inflation). The greater the outlier the more like the corruption (soft though it may be). Now I don't know the Clintons cashed out the most, but it seems like a fairly good indicator.

So something like 2 times the moving average of the bribes received by the last five presidents means you are corrupt, anything less and you're not?

It would engender suspicion. If you're getting more money there's usually a reason for it. People don't give out cash without expectations. Sources would matter too I guess, universities (direct funded, not through partnerships) would by less eyebrow raising then financial institutions or oil companies, for example.

[Valmy]

@realDonaldTrump
The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there! We either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!

So he seriously considers to shutdown his own administration if he doesn't get money for his silly policies. That must be first.

I don't understand how shutting down the government is going to fix any messes.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh yeah, yesterday I heard on NPR that the House passed a continuing resolution (or was it a budget bill?) that didn't include money for Teh Wall.

Hillary: that would be a weird basis for a corruption law.