Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 738084 times)

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2450 on: July 25, 2016, 07:54:02 AM »
Since everyone loves Hillary is corrupt conspiracy theories

Just FYI, conspiracies stop being called "theories" when they're proven true.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2451 on: July 25, 2016, 08:15:21 AM »
Since everyone loves Hillary is corrupt conspiracy theories, here is a Trump one.  Real or not...you Decide


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

well as long as we're sharing allegations that have substandard support, here's one about DT and sexual assault
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/third-woman-alleges-she-was-sexually-assaulted-donald-trump

Just FYI, conspiracies stop being called "theories" when they're proven true.
As a scientist I agree - the general public uses the word 'theory' to describe both something that's is overwhelmingly substantiated by data and experiments (e.g. Quantum Theory, Theory of Natural Selection, etc) and things that are just educated guesses with little supporting evidence (e.g. Theory of vaccines causing autism, Obama's a Muslim theory, Fluoridation theory, etc).
If something has very little evidence, it should not be called a "theory".

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2452 on: July 25, 2016, 10:43:41 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs

Well, there you have it.  Hillary is terrific!  She is a really good person! 

I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....

Do you know the date of that video clip? 
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office.  Now that would be political chaos!

would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.

And Trump said he WOULD raise taxes on the rich.

Which is it?

http://fortune.com/2016/05/08/trump-raise-taxes-wealthy/

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2453 on: July 25, 2016, 10:53:56 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5A02pNcGHs

Well, there you have it.  Hillary is terrific!  She is a really good person! 

I'm telling you, this election is just so bizarre.....

Do you know the date of that video clip? 
Yes, I do feel like we've gone into bizzaro-world during this election. To move back towards the thread topic, one of my continuing criticisms of DT is that he's shifted his positions on so many 'core' issues and on his political affiliation (5 times!) that I have no confidence what he will support down the road. Should he get elected I wouldn't even rule out him shifting parties during his actual time in office.  Now that would be political chaos!

would that even matter? I fully expect him to propose higher taxes on the rich than hillary, if you are democrat mostly concerned about the economy and not as much about social issues, he is your man.
Well, we agree, in that I don't expect him to do/try to do anything that he has said he would, but he does say that he will lower taxes for the rich. That is in contrast with what Clinton has said/done.

And Trump said he WOULD raise taxes on the rich.

Which is it?

http://fortune.com/2016/05/08/trump-raise-taxes-wealthy/
Well, that week was a week where initially, he said that he would lower all taxes, then said he wouldn't lower them for the rich, then said he would lower them for the rich, just not as much.

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2454 on: July 25, 2016, 11:03:19 AM »
Maybe this is where, as a mustachian, I am out of touch. This message was so fear based, but not reason based...
Do people consistently react to fear-mongering that is based in loose/zero correlation?

Um, yes.  Have you seen our mass media today?  Fear sells. People are scared, and they're willing to give up all their civil liberties to feel a little safer.. you don't think they'll vote for the politician promising to protect them?
I know that people respond to fear, but I don't know that they respond to doom and gloom. Trump's speech was about a US that sounds like an alternate reality, to me. Even Reagan campaigned on optimism.

They do. The speech wasn't for you or me or most MMM readers. His speech was to a suspicious white segment that already thinks we're in the end times. That has been the sentiment for the past 7 years. No matter what Obama does, he is a scary foreigner set to ruin America. ISIS and immigrants are out to kill you. That's the narrative and it's been wildly successful.

Our economy and culture have changed. The people he was speaking to have not. Change can feel an awful lot like an attack when you aren't a part of it.

Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...

Yeah... What does one say to that?

He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried. 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2455 on: July 25, 2016, 11:11:42 AM »

Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...

Yeah... What does one say to that?

He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.

Once people go down that rabbit-hole there's seldom any logic that can draw them out.  I've got at least one in-law that believes similar crack-pot ideas.

If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2456 on: July 25, 2016, 11:17:52 AM »
I decided a while back I was not going to be the voice of reason with the more serious "political enthusiasts" in my life.

There are only a few but they just stress me out with their half an understanding and no willingness to seek out the other half. 

Usually what happens with someone like my coworker is someone with similar income, education and cultural norms near that person will call them out in time. It seems to stick a whole lot better than when I do it.

I don't wear the right clothes, I don't have the right leisure time activities, I don't drive the right kinds of vehicles and I don't watch the right kinds of TV so my credibility starts out at a disadvantage.

I prefer to quietly lead by example. ;)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 12:06:20 PM by Mybigtoe »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2457 on: July 25, 2016, 11:19:12 AM »

Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...

Yeah... What does one say to that?

He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.

Once people go down that rabbit-hole there's seldom any logic that can draw them out.  I've got at least one in-law that believes similar crack-pot ideas.

If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

It's a smokescreen man.  Those communist Muslims who don't even have US birth certificates but get elected as president are tricky bastards.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2458 on: July 25, 2016, 02:13:29 PM »
Other than Bob Dole, no living president, vice president, or former nominee for president or vice president attended the GOP convention.

Paul Ryan was there. He was Romney's pick for VP in the last election.

(I imagine he would have rather not been there, but I'm not a Republican and might be reading him incorrectly.)

Oh yes, I forgot about him.

Well, Al Gore just endorsed Hillary Clinton.  The current list of people who have been either President or VP or were the party's candidate who have endorsed Clinton includes Obama, Biden, Kerry, Mondale and Gore. Ironically I can find no evidence that her husband has endorsed her just yet (but I expect that will come).

Trump has Cheney, Quayle, Rubio, Walker, Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, Carson, Gilmore, Perry and.... Ryan.  With one of the lamest endorsements by Ryan I've seen yet.  notably lacking from Trump are the Bushes (at least three - Jeb, "W" and Sr.), McCain, and Romney.

I'm sure there are others I've forgotten, but there are lots on both sides who either were candidates or ran in the primaries who have given the endorsement.  I think it's a mistake to say that either one is lacking.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2459 on: July 25, 2016, 04:51:38 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2460 on: July 25, 2016, 05:01:04 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

This is exactly the kind of response my in-law gives me anytime I bother to try to poke holes in crack-pot conspiracy ideas.
Pop quiz (becuase I Just looked it up):  What is the current pension amount given to past US presidents?

Answer: (scroll over to view);
Spoiler: show
$191,300/yr.  Amount is tied to the salary given to current cabinet members

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2461 on: July 25, 2016, 05:37:59 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

Maybe they can save a bit of money by stealing furniture from the White House like the Clinton's did... :)

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2462 on: July 25, 2016, 06:43:41 PM »
Well, now there's this...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

Not that it's any better than the previous state of affairs. I just like it because the theory shared by MoonShadow, which I thought was well-reasoned, is still holding.

The only thing that encourages me at this point is the number of Gary Johnson things I see being shared around Facebook (though there's a sad lack of Jill Stein). Also, "feel the Johnson." ಠ_ಠ

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3311
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2463 on: July 25, 2016, 07:30:15 PM »

Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...

Yeah... What does one say to that?

He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.

My dad showed me this video of Obama saying Americans were small minded. He'd received it in an email from a buddy.

So I calmly explained the editing that went on and we pulled up a Snopes article that debunked the whole thing. Then he sent a zinger of an email back to his buddy pointing out the BS.

There's hope yet.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2016, 07:35:07 PM by Malaysia41 »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2464 on: July 25, 2016, 07:37:13 PM »

Rode with a coworker the other day who was in a talkative moode. He went on to explain that the recent violent events in the USA and Europe were operations run by Barack Obama so he could declare martial law and stay in office. And then tied that theory into all the bullet buying/unavailability over the past few years...

Yeah... What does one say to that?

He wasn't proposing anything violent. Just worried.

My dad showed me this video of Obama saying Americans were small minded.


Has he told you that Michelle Obama is really a man yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvuulZPbfBg

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2465 on: July 25, 2016, 07:54:27 PM »
Well, now there's this...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

Not that it's any better than the previous state of affairs. I just like it because the theory shared by MoonShadow, which I thought was well-reasoned, is still holding.

The only thing that encourages me at this point is the number of Gary Johnson things I see being shared around Facebook (though there's a sad lack of Jill Stein). Also, "feel the Johnson." ಠ_ಠ

what theory? can you point out which reply or paste the link?

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2466 on: July 26, 2016, 06:04:31 AM »
Well, now there's this...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html

Not that it's any better than the previous state of affairs. I just like it because the theory shared by MoonShadow, which I thought was well-reasoned, is still holding.

The only thing that encourages me at this point is the number of Gary Johnson things I see being shared around Facebook (though there's a sad lack of Jill Stein). Also, "feel the Johnson." ಠ_ಠ
What you are seeing is called a convention bump. This appears to be a medium to large bump, but was sort of expected, due to the unpopularity of both candidates. It comes from a week of free coverage that is controlled by the campaigns. 538 has a pretty good analysis of this from yesterday. Historically, it appears that polls 30 days after the conventions start is when you should start taking polls seriously.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2467 on: July 26, 2016, 07:26:40 AM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

This is exactly the kind of response my in-law gives me anytime I bother to try to poke holes in crack-pot conspiracy ideas.
Pop quiz (becuase I Just looked it up):  What is the current pension amount given to past US presidents?

Answer: (scroll over to view);
Spoiler: show
$191,300/yr.  Amount is tied to the salary given to current cabinet members


Just curious, but do you know if the pension starts immediately after leaving the White House or if the ex-President must reach a certain age to start collecting it.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2468 on: July 26, 2016, 07:30:53 AM »
It start's immediately.  Spouses can also receive a pension of 20k a year if they forgo any other pension they may be entitled to.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2469 on: July 26, 2016, 07:39:25 AM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

Maybe they can save a bit of money by stealing furniture from the White House like the Clinton's did... :)

Will this never die?  The Clinton's did not steal any furniture.  This has been debunked so many times and even Bush debunked it after he took residence in the white house.  Sitting Presidents get a lot of gifts, some for them, some for the white house.  After the Clinton's left they found that some gifts intended for the white house were given to the Clintons, and some intended for the Clintons were given tot he white house.  It can be quite difficult to determine the intended recipient of some gifts unless it is explicitly spelled out, which doesn't always happen.

There are lots of things to criticize the Clinton's about, but this isn't it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2470 on: July 26, 2016, 08:19:35 AM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

Maybe they can save a bit of money by stealing furniture from the White House like the Clinton's did... :)

Will this never die?  The Clinton's did not steal any furniture.  This has been debunked so many times and even Bush debunked it after he took residence in the white house.  Sitting Presidents get a lot of gifts, some for them, some for the white house.  After the Clinton's left they found that some gifts intended for the white house were given to the Clintons, and some intended for the Clintons were given tot he white house.  It can be quite difficult to determine the intended recipient of some gifts unless it is explicitly spelled out, which doesn't always happen.

There are lots of things to criticize the Clinton's about, but this isn't it.

Based on the fact that he included an emoticon, I was assuming that music lover was bringing it up because of its absurdity, much like I did with the idea that Michelle Obama is actually a man or that Obama gave a speech where he said that people are small minded and cannot be trusted to govern themselves.  I think and hope that no one here actually takes those easily debunked, crack-pot ideas seriously.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2471 on: July 26, 2016, 12:33:30 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2472 on: July 26, 2016, 01:05:00 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2473 on: July 26, 2016, 01:07:43 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2474 on: July 26, 2016, 01:14:43 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2475 on: July 26, 2016, 01:19:58 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal

Yeah, once again, Trump is the absolutely worst person to make a character argument about collecting as much money as people are willing to throw at you.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2476 on: July 26, 2016, 01:25:09 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
Right, but he didn't write The Art of the Deal. Who knows if he's even read it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2477 on: July 26, 2016, 01:32:39 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
Right, but he didn't write The Art of the Deal. Who knows if he's even read it.
He's listed as the lead author, although I tend to agree that it's likely he did little of hte actual writing.
Regardless, my point stands.  You can't be critical of someone for leveraging their position to make huge sums of money when you are actively encouraging people to leverage their positions to make huge sums of money.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2478 on: July 26, 2016, 01:36:39 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal
Right, but he didn't write The Art of the Deal. Who knows if he's even read it.
He's listed as the lead author, although I tend to agree that it's likely he did little of hte actual writing.
Regardless, my point stands.  You can't be critical of someone for leveraging their position to make huge sums of money when you are actively encouraging people to leverage their positions to make huge sums of money.

According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2479 on: July 26, 2016, 01:39:53 PM »

According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.

I get that.  But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands.  If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it.  He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2480 on: July 26, 2016, 01:47:41 PM »

According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.

I get that.  But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands.  If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it.  He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2481 on: July 26, 2016, 01:52:46 PM »

According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.

I get that.  But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands.  If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it.  He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.

Again - what difference does that make to the point I was making?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2482 on: July 26, 2016, 01:55:54 PM »

According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.

I get that.  But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands.  If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it.  He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.

Again - what difference does that make to the point I was making?

I don't think it does. The fact that he claims the book and the message it contains as his own while not having much to do with the actual writing of it don't really contradict one another.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2483 on: July 26, 2016, 02:37:45 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal

There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2484 on: July 26, 2016, 02:45:00 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal

There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.

How is this deflecting, and how is this not a legitimate way of making money? Where is the illegitimacy when a group willingly pays another individual a large and agreed upon sum of money to give a speech?
How is it 'deflecting' to bring Trump in on this, given the thread's topic and how Trump has a harsh critic of the speaking fees while simultaneously promoting the idea that a person should use a position of strength to leverage the amount of money they can get from a situation.
I honestly don't follow here.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2485 on: July 26, 2016, 02:56:24 PM »

According to the ghostwriter and publisher Trump did NONE of the writing. The ghostwriter shadowed Trump and listened in on phone conversations for several weeks (months?) and then wrote the book trying to portray Trump in as best light as possible. Once the draft was written, it was given to Trump and all his only feedback was to remove certain negative anecdotes about other businessmen who he was no longer in the outs with.

I get that.  But his name is still on the cover and my point still stands.  If you sign off on something as "yours" you own it.  He's certainly promoted it enough this election cycle.
That's only true to a point. It really doesn't do anything to suggest that he has read it.

Again - what difference does that make to the point I was making?
Well, as he didn't write the book, and it's basically a fictional version of him that exists to make him look good, any agreement between the book's thesis and his actual behavior are little more than coincidence. There's no reason to think that he would approve of the content (particularly if it's a day where he decides to randomly reverse his opinions).

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2486 on: July 26, 2016, 03:43:46 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal

There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.

How is this deflecting, and how is this not a legitimate way of making money? Where is the illegitimacy when a group willingly pays another individual a large and agreed upon sum of money to give a speech?
How is it 'deflecting' to bring Trump in on this, given the thread's topic and how Trump has a harsh critic of the speaking fees while simultaneously promoting the idea that a person should use a position of strength to leverage the amount of money they can get from a situation.
I honestly don't follow here.

How can you not understand a simple conflict of interest situation where the spouse of the Secretary of State receives very large sums of money from foreign interests? I find it hard to believe that someone can truly be that naïve.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2487 on: July 26, 2016, 04:25:21 PM »
If you wanted to try logic, though (which probably won't work), you could point out that the Obamas have recently purchased a home in DC for $5MM, in part so that Sasha can finish high-school.  Why would someone planning on declaring martial law be making expensive plans already to leave?

So naive nereo! That's what the Obamas want you to think. Sure, it seems like they're just going to leave the WH but in reality they're planning a major coup. The 5 million dollar house is a distraction. It can't even be true because they only make 400K/year. No way they could buy a house that expensive. Probably took the money from the Treasury.

They are renting the house. And I'm sure Obama will make many millions per year giving speeches. Bill Clinton raked in over $100M between leaving office and 2008.

I can't tell whether this is criticism or a compliment of the former president.

Considering that Bill's "speaking fees" to foreign interests increased significantly once Hillary became Secretary of State, take that any way you want...

I feel like this is something that Trump would overwhelmingly approve of, if he were not running against Clinton.
"Make the biggest profit you can, any way you can" seems a decent synopsis of his Art Of The Deal

There is a big difference between making money legitimately, and getting paid $500,000 to make a "speech" to a foreign interests while your wife is Secretary of State. You only bring up Trump in an attempt to deflect.

How is this deflecting, and how is this not a legitimate way of making money? Where is the illegitimacy when a group willingly pays another individual a large and agreed upon sum of money to give a speech?
How is it 'deflecting' to bring Trump in on this, given the thread's topic and how Trump has a harsh critic of the speaking fees while simultaneously promoting the idea that a person should use a position of strength to leverage the amount of money they can get from a situation.
I honestly don't follow here.

How can you not understand a simple conflict of interest situation where the spouse of the Secretary of State receives very large sums of money from foreign interests? I find it hard to believe that someone can truly be that naïve.

Well if you read back into the thread, this was specifically about Bill Clinton's speaking fees between leaving office (in 2001) and 2008.  Hillary did not become SoS until January of 2009.  So any conflict of interest isn't relevant to that time period. I don't find it terribly surprising that a wide variety of groups would want to hear from the former leader of the free world.
My specific comments were questioning how Trump can claim to disapprove of receiving large speaking fees when he himself advocates getting the best deal one can for oneself, damn everyone else. Trump himself has famously profited from several causes, even when he implied he would not be receiving any financial compensation. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2488 on: July 26, 2016, 04:27:22 PM »
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?"  (or vice versa?)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2489 on: July 26, 2016, 04:35:46 PM »
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?"  (or vice versa?)
No.  Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"

The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2490 on: July 26, 2016, 08:49:36 PM »
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?"  (or vice versa?)
No.  Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"

The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice

Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming poor people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2491 on: July 26, 2016, 09:34:15 PM »
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming dumb people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?

Fixed it. There's a difference.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2492 on: July 27, 2016, 05:00:36 AM »
What is Hillary Clinton's plan for Afghanistan? The Taliban holds the most territory since 2001, and we've had troops there a majority of my lifetime. It's seeming more like a failed colony than anything else now. All I see on her website are speeches that are thin on details, and her national security section seems focused on ISIS, even in Afghanistan, where it's far from the biggest problem. I would really like to know if she's released some sort of plan on this, because it's important.

In 2008 Obama at least wanted to end the war there.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2493 on: July 27, 2016, 05:05:22 AM »
What is Hillary Clinton's plan for Afghanistan? The Taliban holds the most territory since 2001, and we've had troops there a majority of my lifetime. It's seeming more like a failed colony than anything else now. All I see on her website are speeches that are thin on details, and her national security section seems focused on ISIS, even in Afghanistan, where it's far from the biggest problem. I would really like to know if she's released some sort of plan on this, because it's important.

In 2008 Obama at least wanted to end the war there.

I'm not advocating for any party here, or trying to defend Mrs. Clinton, but I'm curious what you propose.

Isn't it fairly generally agreed that the power vacuum from when we left Iraq is what gave rise to ISIS?  Won't it just strengthen ISIS for us to leave Afghanistan, too?

I genuinely don't know, but that was the first thing that popped into my head upon reading your post.  Ending the Afghanistan deployment seems counterproductive to a goal of stopping ISIS, no?
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2494 on: July 27, 2016, 05:30:44 AM »
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?"  (or vice versa?)
No.  Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"

The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice

Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming poor people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?

He was not only the ex-president, he was the husband of the existing Secretary of State and he received large sums of money from foreign interests while his wife held a position of power.

The denial factor of Hillary supporters is impressive...

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2495 on: July 27, 2016, 05:41:42 AM »
What is Hillary Clinton's plan for Afghanistan? The Taliban holds the most territory since 2001, and we've had troops there a majority of my lifetime. It's seeming more like a failed colony than anything else now. All I see on her website are speeches that are thin on details, and her national security section seems focused on ISIS, even in Afghanistan, where it's far from the biggest problem. I would really like to know if she's released some sort of plan on this, because it's important.

In 2008 Obama at least wanted to end the war there.

I'm not advocating for any party here, or trying to defend Mrs. Clinton, but I'm curious what you propose.

Isn't it fairly generally agreed that the power vacuum from when we left Iraq is what gave rise to ISIS?  Won't it just strengthen ISIS for us to leave Afghanistan, too?

I genuinely don't know, but that was the first thing that popped into my head upon reading your post.  Ending the Afghanistan deployment seems counterproductive to a goal of stopping ISIS, no?

I'm not gonna claim I know how to fix Afghanistan, but I want the President to have a plausible plan to do so if they're going to continue risking American lives and money there. I think it's fair to want candidates for President running on their foreign policy background to have a plan here.

The thing is, what we're doing now isn't working at all. The good guys have been losing ground every year.

I read that most Afghans have never heard of 9/11. They have no idea why Americans are there blowing people up, sometimes innocent people. I don't think we're doing anything to reduce the grasp of Islamists by having troops in Afghanistan. I might be wrong, but I'd like to see a reasonable plan to actually improve conditions in Afghanistan if the answer isn't "give up."

Also - is ISIS really worse than North Vietnam? Given what the North did to the South after we left, the massacres, the re-education camps, the political prisons, should we not have left Vietnam if we shouldn't leave Afghanistan? ISIS has a sex slave system, which is obviously unspeakably horrific, but let's not pretend there wasn't a lot of rape at the end of the Vietnam War.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2496 on: July 27, 2016, 05:46:18 AM »
That's fair.

I was curious if you had an idea, because I certainly don't have one.

I don't think it's out of line to ask that the people trying to run the country have one though.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2497 on: July 27, 2016, 06:07:36 AM »
So our discussion is "Trump does it maybe a little worse than Hillary, so it's ok if she does it?"  (or vice versa?)
No.  Currently the question at hand is "is it inappropriate for a former US president to be paid to give speeches?"

The Trump aspect is questioning why Trump is claiming to be so upset by this given his own advice

Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming poor people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?

He was not only the ex-president, he was the husband of the existing Secretary of State and he received large sums of money from foreign interests while his wife held a position of power.

The denial factor of Hillary supporters is impressive...

No music lover.  As I said in my response to you a few posts ago, the time period being discussed was between the end of Bill Clinton's presidency in 2001 and 2008.  HIllary was not Secretary of State until 2009.  Your timeline is off.

Regarding your accusation of naivety and denial - I do not deny that Bill Clinton was paid large speaking fees to hundreds of groups, some of which included foreign entities. I also acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was SoS from 2009 on.
Where I am left unconvinced is that doing so is an ethical conflict of interest, even during the term when Hillary was serving as SoS. I agree that it warrants close inspection, but unless a connection can be made that groups Bill Clinton spoke to requested and received special treatment in exchange for his speaking fee I have a hard time condemning the practice.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2498 on: July 27, 2016, 06:43:34 AM »
Nereo, here's an example of a concerning ethical situation involving speaking fees and her SoS term. (It's from the New York Times.) Now, there's obviously no proof of pay-to-play Philadelphia-style, but it's not minty fresh clean feeling either.

Personally I think there are much better reasons to be concerned at the prospect of a Clinton presidency, but that's mostly because there are so many good reasons to be concerned.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2499 on: July 27, 2016, 07:23:48 AM »
Which is more inappropriate, an ex-President being paid to give speeches or a millionaire scamming dumb people claiming to teach them how to get rich in real estate?

Fixed it. There's a difference.

Exactly what is the difference? Are you arguing that if people are dumb enough to fall for a scam it is okay to do it?