What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

I think I know what you want.

Hey I did not even want another Obama back years and years ago when this last horrid election started. But even if King Arthur does return I am afraid all he will be able to rule is the UK

[DGuller]

I would've never guess that Sarah Palin had a book, much less that she wrote one.

it was probably a coloring book.

Assuming it is a real book, with scores of pages with words on them, can you imagine being a ghost writer for that one?  Now that's a person who deserves $60 million in compensation.

[Berkut]

The argument that Berkut and before him, Mihalia are presenting is that voting is akin to choosing consumer products.  It is the producer's responsibility to create a product that appeals to consumers, and if they don't like it, it's perfectly reasonable to not purchase it.  The logical flaw in that argument is that you can not opt out of consumption of government.  If you don't like Hillary's tofughetti, you don't get to eat a burger instead.  You're stuck eating Donald's shit sandwich.

That isn't my argument at all. I voted, and voted for Clinton. I think I might have mentioned that once or a thousand times.

[Berkut]

I think Obama taking $400k for a speech is more bothersome than him taking $65 million for a book.

But even that is not that big a deal. I don't mind the man making a buck.

When I look at the Clintons taking in $150 million plus, while still being actively involved in politics and decision making, I think they are corrupt. Can I prove it? Of course not - that is why the current political corruption works so well. There is no defined quid pro quo, no smoking gun, nothing illegal per se. But the system itself is corrupting, and I don't need to put on a legal case to be convinced that it corrupting for politicians who are there to serve Americans becoming filthy rich from money funneled to them by corporate America.

I think it fucking stinks when it is the ex-Speaker of the house taking a cushy job for the very people he fought for after his constituents get fed up with him. I think it stinks when most politicians spend the majority of their time fund raising, and know that they MUST keep the people with the money happy to keep their positions.

I think just about everyone arguing against me in the case of Clinton is being incredibly two faced. If this was some pol they didn't like, they would have no problem recognizing that the corruption of the political system by money is problematic. They just want to believe that Clinton, of all people, is the exception somehow? Suddenly they are demanding proof that they know doesn't actually exist?

I can't prove that Clinton was corrupted by getting paid one hundred and fifty million dollars by corporate America. But I don't have to "prove" it to myself to be convinced that it is true, I just need a reasonable amount of evidence and some basic reasoning skills, and a willingness to apply that reasoning consistently, even to those who I just voted for...

[Berkut]

I think I'd want evidence of corruption beyond just the assumption that a person making a lot of money is corrupt.

Do you think the system itself is corrupt in general, but Clinton is an exception?

Or do you think that overall the system is not corrupt, and Clinton is the norm?

[CountDeMoney]

I can't prove that Clinton was corrupted by getting paid one hundred and fifty million dollars by corporate America. But I don't have to "prove" it to myself to be convinced that it is true, I just need a reasonable amount of evidence and some basic reasoning skills, and a willingness to apply that reasoning consistently, even to those who I just voted for...

You sound like all the fevered GOPers that spent years and millions investigating the Clintons, only to find nothing.  Know why?  Because there was nothing there. 

Interesting thing about investigations:  either they uncover something, or they don't.  Empiricism is a motherfucker, ain't it.

[Berkut]

I can't prove that Clinton was corrupted by getting paid one hundred and fifty million dollars by corporate America. But I don't have to "prove" it to myself to be convinced that it is true, I just need a reasonable amount of evidence and some basic reasoning skills, and a willingness to apply that reasoning consistently, even to those who I just voted for...

You sound like all the fevered GOPers that spent years and millions investigating the Clintons, only to find nothing.  Know why?  Because there was nothing there. 

Interesting thing about investigations:  either they uncover something, or they don't.  Empiricism is a motherfucker, ain't it.

I don't think I sounds anything like the GOP.

If we were just talking about the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, and how politicians serve those who pay them in general, or how Citizens United was a terrible blow to democracy, none of you would be debating the point. Well, few of you would. YOU certainly would not.

But if we talk about your specific politician, who has taken literally hundreds of millions from those same corporations?

Now its all "ZOMG YOU MUST PROVIDE PROOF!!! THERE IS NOTHING THERE!!!!!"

I am sure there is nothing wrong though, and the Dems should just keep doing the same thing they have been doing, and nominating the same awesome candidates that has seen them lose to the worst Presidential candidate in history ever, hold what - a third of governorships, and a third of Congress, and a third of state legislatures. Everything is fine, nothing to see here, Hillary is awesome, and the only reason anybody doesn't vote for her has nothing to do with her at all.

Chelsea 2020! Or will it be Hillary....again?

[CountDeMoney]

I don't think I sounds anything like the GOP.

Sure you do.

I don't have to "prove" it to myself to be convinced that it is true,

You sound like the love child of Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz. 

[grumbler]

I can't prove that Clinton was corrupted by getting paid one hundred and fifty million dollars by corporate America. But I don't have to "prove" it to myself to be convinced that it is true, I just need a reasonable amount of evidence and some basic reasoning skills, and a willingness to apply that reasoning consistently, even to those who I just voted for...

You sound like all the fevered GOPers that spent years and millions investigating the Clintons, only to find nothing.  Know why?  Because there was nothing there. 

Interesting thing about investigations:  either they uncover something, or they don't.  Empiricism is a motherfucker, ain't it.

He is far more fevered than the facts will support ("paid one hundred and fifty million dollars by corporate America") but the stench of corruption is as strong in the case of the Clintons as in anyone in politics.

Personally, I can't figure what the bribery is buying that is worth the $100,000 per 40 minute speech.

[CountDeMoney]

Personally, I can't figure what the bribery is buying that is worth the $100,000 per 40 minute speech.

That's because it isn't buying anything.

But hey, there's always some putz out there who believes an NBA player making $15m a game is shaving points for peanuts from a bookie.

[grumbler]

That's because it isn't buying anything.

But hey, there's always some putz out there who believes an NBA player making $15m a game is shaving points for peanuts from a bookie.

I dunno.  Bill Clinton has made more than $100 million in speaking fees alone since leaving office, according to WaPo.  In that same span, Rudy Giuliani has made about $10 million, despite similar fees.  I'd rather hear Clinton, for sure, but the sheer scale of it smells pretty bad.

[Berkut]

I don't think I sounds anything like the GOP.

Sure you do.

I don't have to "prove" it to myself to be convinced that it is true,

You sound like the love child of Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz. 

I notice you don't actually make an argument.

I will pose the same question to you:

Do you think that corporate money corrupts politicians in general, but that the Clintons are an exception?

Or do you think that there isn't any problem with money corrupting politicians in general?

[Berkut]

That's because it isn't buying anything.

But hey, there's always some putz out there who believes an NBA player making $15m a game is shaving points for peanuts from a bookie.

I dunno.  Bill Clinton has made more than $100 million in speaking fees alone since leaving office, according to WaPo.  In that same span, Rudy Giuliani has made about $10 million, despite similar fees.  I'd rather hear Clinton, for sure, but the sheer scale of it smells pretty bad.

I think Bill making hundreds of millions in speaking fees is especially bad since everyone paying those fees knows that he is married to a sitting Senator/SecState/Future President.

I am sure they are just trying to make sure they have enough for retirement though. What's $150 million here or there?

[CountDeMoney]

I notice you don't actually make an argument.

That's because, after over 10 fucking years of dealing with your rebar reinforced concrete skull, it's really kind of pointless to make any argument at all.

I will pose the same question to you:

Do you think that corporate money corrupts politicians in general, but that the Clintons are an exception?

Or do you think that there isn't any problem with money corrupting politicians in general?

That's two questions.

But I really don't see why you insist on attributing "corruption"--which is a criminal offense--to retired, former or out of office elected officials who accept speaking fees. 

Bill Clinton hasn't been in office for 17 years, who gives a shit if the Burger King Franchise Owners Association of Greater Chicago want to pay him to come talk at their yearly conference.

[Berkut]

You are evading the question.