2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Martinus]

Let's not forget that the donors were not just any foreign governments, but some of the most vile human rights violators like Saudi Arabia.

[Malthus]

Ben Carson is the only one I might say otherwise, because he has the same fundamental problem as Trump - he doesn't know politics, and refuses to listen to those who do.

There is also the 'being apparently batshit crazy' factor. 

[Barrister]

On the flip side of the speechgate allegations, Trump got Yuge $$ from giving "motivational" speeches for ACN, a "multi-level marketing" company, and for being a keynote speaker for pre-subprime crash real estate "investment seminars" where ordinary folks were taught about flipping properties. 

So pick your poison: appearance of corruption vs appearance of exploitative skeevyness.

If those are my choices, I'll go with Clinton.

But don't make me pretend that I'm not drinking poison when I do it.

[Admiral Yi]

skeevyness.

I always thought skeevy was surfer lingo, now I'm wondering if it's Yiddish.  Do you know?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Bill got huge speaking fees while his wife was Secretary of State.  HIllary got huge speaking fees shortly before running for President.  The Clinton Foundation gather huge donations throughout the whole period.

Bush 41 got $ for speeches while his son was President, and Bush 43 while his brother was running.  Gingrich collected speaking fees shortly before running for Prez.  Probably could think of a few more examples if I took the time.  But no one blinks an eye if it's not the Clintons.

Bush 41 had some larger conflicts of interest. He was on the board of directors (and received significant money) from the Carlyle Group, through 2003. The Carlyle Group owned United Defense LP, which was the maker of the Crusader self-propelled artillery, an $11bn boondoggle for a self-propelled howitzer the military didn't really need, and there's decent evidence the program was only continued because of Carlyle's political connections (i.e. the President's dad was on its board), until journalists brought it to light.

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's not forget that the donors were not just any foreign governments, but some of the most vile human rights violators like Saudi Arabia.

Yes well the Clintons weren't best friends with the Saudi princes like the Bush family.  Their relationship with say "Bandar Bush" was a little more arms length. 

Fortunately the Donald is completely clean of any interaction with those horrible gulf arabs.   That is aside from the Dubai golf course and the RE development companies he incorporated in Saudiland. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I always thought skeevy was surfer lingo, now I'm wondering if it's Yiddish.  Do you know?

Not a clue.

[The Minsky Moment]

Isn't Trump supposedly earning mega-dollars right now from gambling?

IIRC he lost his interest in the casinos that bear his name after the bankruptcy reorgs.

[Barrister]

Google suggests it comes from Italian schifo.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In the fourth major bankruptcy of the late 2000s/early 2010s I believe he fully lost all financial interest in the casinos. But he definitely personally profited substantially from his 20 years in Atlantic City.

[Zanza]

Bill got huge speaking fees while his wife was Secretary of State.

Do you suggest that his fees were somehow related to her being Secretary of State?

Yes.

Okay, I would have assumed it was because he was a popular former president. Is it usual that spouses of Secretaries of State hold highly paid speeches?

HIllary got huge speaking fees shortly before running for President.

Good for her...?

Hillary isn't all that interesting a speaker, as we have seen in this campaign.  So why would Goldman Sacks (amongst others) be willing to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple hours work?

I don't really understand why anybody pays anyone hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech and can't tell you what Goldman Sachs (with an "h") had as motivation. Unlike you apparently. 

The Clinton Foundation gather huge donations throughout the whole period.

That doesn't seem unusual for a charitable foundation...

It doesn't trouble you that foreign governments were donating to the Clinton Foundation (to the tune of millions of dollars), even during the time that Hillary was Secretary of State?  Can you not see a conflict of interest there?

Among the foreign governments in question was my own government. I assume that the German government neither had anything illicit in mind nor did anything illegal. As far as I know they supported valid causes that the Clinton Foundation championed in the Third World. From what I read it was about planting forests and was also supported by the Norwegian and Australian governments. Not sure how that is a conflict of interest. Hillary Clinton being interested in supporting forestry programs in the Third World conflicts with what other interest...?

[Admiral Yi]

Google suggests it comes from Italian schifo.

How funky.

[LaCroix]

Hillary isn't all that interesting a speaker, as we have seen in this campaign.  So why would Goldman Sacks (amongst others) be willing to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple hours work?

the market pays what it will. in your opinion, hillary "isn't all that interesting a speaker." apparently, the market disagrees in this specific circumstance. why are people paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak at events? I don't know because I'm not in the industry.

here are a few others who have received $100k+ from a single speech:
david plouffe
sarah palin
al gore
larry summers
condoleezza rice
george w. bush
ben bernanke
tim geithner
bill clinton

to me, some make sense and some don't. to you, some make sense and some don't. but it's all kinds of ridiculous to argue $$ from a speech is evidence of corruption when the figure isn't anything crazy high.

[Berkut]

Oh, I don't doubt that there is a element of legal corruption in those companies shelling out cash to Clinton to speak. But it is no different than all the other ways that companies funnel money to politicians in the relatively reasonable hope that their investment will be paid back and then some.

I just think it is silly to single Clinton out. When someone does see, it is clear that their objection is not really about corruption, but rather just using it as a tool advance their agenda otherwise, since there are a lot more problematic means of corruption out there. If the objection is to Clinton taking money on principle, then Beebs would be complaining about all those other means as well, and so would all the people bleating about the Clintons.

The idea of any Trump supporter having anything to say about corruption is just laughable.

[PJL]

I must admit, Donald Trump and Mitt Romney as the GOP candidates for 2016 & 2012 respectively both share the same belief that governments must be run like businesses. However given the way Trump runs his businesses, I expect the US to declare bankruptcy at least once during a Trump presidency.