What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

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?

Sorry to go grumbler on this but I think I'd need to see what you are defining as corruption.

Anyway without a definition, I'd say Clinton is about middle of the road. No saint but not the devil. After all no saints become president.

[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?

Sorry to go grumbler on this but I think I'd need to see what you are defining as corruption.

Making decisions as a politician based not on what you think is best for the country or your constituents, but because you are beholden to those who you have accepted money from in the past, or hope to collect money from in the future.

I note that this is not technically illegal, as long as there is no clear quid pro quo. It is still corruption, in my opinion.

Anyway without a definition, I'd say Clinton is about middle of the road. No saint but not the devil. After all no saints become president.

I don't know too many others who have collected into the 8 figures. The Clintons are completely corrupt. There are probably plenty others who would be just as corrupt given the chance, but the Clintons have turned modern political corruption into an art form.

[garbon]

Wait making money in the absence of evidence that it changed one's policies is now corruption?

[viper37]

Making decisions as a politician based not on what you think is best for the country or your constituents, but because you are beholden to those who you have accepted money from in the past, or hope to collect money from in the future.

How would Trump fall into this? Is he doing what his best for the country, as well as him, or is he simply doing what will make him the richest of all scenarios?

[Oexmelin]

"People don't ask the question, but why was there a Civil War?"

-- The President of the United States.

Indeed, no one ever asked the question.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/01/trump-people-dont-ask-that-question-but-why-was-there-a-civil-war.html

[Oexmelin]

And of course, Andrew Jackson was really upset about the war too.

[Valmy]

Was he implying some sort of compromise could have been reached? Because the Democrats bent over backwards trying to come up with all sorts of twisted compromises to save their party and the South STILL walked out at the 1860 convention.

I mean I know he is not popular among black voters but is implying we should have worked hard to find a way to make slavery work really a good strategy to bring them around?

[Valmy]

And of course, Andrew Jackson was really upset about the war too.

Well he would have been. He put South Carolina in its place.

[FunkMonk]

We should be commending Donald for having the courage to be the first person to ask why the civil war had to happen. It is amazing that no other human being has ever thought or written anything about this subject. Ever.

God I love my dumb shallow president.

[Admiral Yi]

Was he implying some sort of compromise could have been reached?

He's implying he's an illiterate uninformed buffoon.  Maybe some Breitbart blog about the Civil War caught his eye.

[The Minsky Moment]

Berkut mentioned the speaking fees.

That's the wrong focus IMO.  The speaking fees do buy a form of access but there are other ways to get that.  The reality is that the fees are paid not to get influence but to be able to brag that we got X to speak at our corporate function.

The big issue for the Clintons was the fact that that Clinton Foundation took money from foreign governments and business - like the governments of Algeria, Kuwait, Oman - while HRC was serving as Secretary of State.  HRC had no official role with the Foundation at the time, but Bill and Chelsea did.  It's true that none of the Clintons received personal financial benefit from the Foundation, and in that sense there is categorical difference between the Foundation and the ethical sewer of the Trump Organization.  However, it is reasonable to believe that the success of the Foundation matters to the Clintons.  It is also reasonable to believe that the foreign governments who donated to the Foundation during HRC's tenure at State thought they were getting more than just a nice feeling of having done good.  At the very least it created a significant appearance of conflict of interest.  It's dangerous to defend that kind of conduct because it leads to the degradation of ethical standards that helps Trump and his family operate the way they do without drawing universal demands for impeachment.

[Valmy]

None of the Clintons received personal benefit? Huh. I thought they were giving themselves fat salaries from the Foundation. That did seem a little shady to me. But I was never that well informed on the details.

[alfred russel]

And of course, Andrew Jackson was really upset about the war too.

Well he would have been. He put South Carolina in its place.

My father had the point of view that Andrew Jackson was first and foremost a "strong leader / strongman" and that drove his perspective in the secession crisis. He was president of the united states, and a dissolution of a part of the union would diminish his power and make him look weak. But under different circumstances--such as had he not been president at the time--he might have been a strong advocate for secession. It all depended on how his personal interests lined up.

[Valmy]

My father had the point of view that Andrew Jackson was first and foremost a "strong leader / strongman" and that drove his perspective in the secession crisis. He was president of the united states, and a dissolution of a part of the union would diminish his power and make him look weak. But under different circumstances--such as had he not been president at the time--he might have been a strong advocate for secession. It all depended on how his personal interests lined up.

It was always personal for Jackson. But I also think he was an American hyperpatriot. The few Jacksonians still alive in 1860, like Sam Houston, tended to oppose secession because of this sensibility.

[Admiral Yi]

That's the wrong focus IMO.  The speaking fees do buy a form of access but there are other ways to get that.  The reality is that the fees are paid not to get influence but to be able to brag that we got X to speak at our corporate function.

None of this eliminates the appearance of conflict of interest.