[Newsweek] Trump is Most Conflicted Candidate Ever

Better title for this.

If Trump becomes president will he do what Hillary Clinton has been doing for the past 8 years?

 

one thing ive been wondering since he started running for president is what exactly does trump do on a day-to-day basis at his "job"? even before running how many hours per week do you really think he worked? he probably spends more time tweeting than doing productive work.

is he really that vital to the success of his companies? and if he is, how are they not totally falling apart now that he is spending all his time running for president.

 

Problem with this article: Trumpanzees don't read.

 

Berlusconi was a fascist at a time when throwing that word around feels more like an exaggeration.

Hillary has her Clinton Foundation as one of the most dubious fronts for enriching her friends and her family legacy, but the Trump Organization takes the cake.

The fact that no one among his basket of inbreds is calling for him to divest himself or his family of the organization is either ignorant or implicit to how grossly connected they'd be.

 

The Clinton Foundation seems to be a complete made up fabricated scandal.

The foundation does charitable works. Chelsea and Bill are both on the board, and receive zero dollars from it. Hillary has made nothing from it.

It isn't pay for play to donate money to a charitable organization that helps deliver medicine for AIDS patients etc. Nobody is getting paid in that incident, certainly not the Clintons. Plenty of the people that supposedly got meetings with Hillary when she was sec. of State would have gotten those meetings whether they donated or not. It seems the most that anyone got for donating that they wouldn't normally get would be a call or email from Huma Abedin. That isn't exactly pay for play.

Again maybe something that shows wrong doing will actually come out, but so far I haven't seen anything that wrong from the Clinton Foundation.

 

This isn't exactly not known but people often are too lazy or doesn't care enough to not eat up scandal stories.

 

Step 9

 

Do you know anything about the Clinton Foundation? 90% of the money it raises goes to programs and it is rated as one of the best charitable organizations by third party monitoring groups. Who is getting rich on this foundation?

It's not a phony front like Trump's non-profit. I'm disappointed in you that you are repeating right-wing talking points here.

 

That's the surprising thing about the Clinton Foundation. The amount of **** talking it gets yet it's one of the highest rated charities in the world. Pay to play? I don't think the people who were positively affected by the Clinton Foundation such as millions of aids patients really care.

 

That's what is so weird, the Clintons didn't benefit from the foundation - they don't make money on it, they did it because they wanted to have a legacy and to use their power to change the world. They are egomaniacs but they are also idealists.

Trump doesn't get a fraction of the scrutiny Clinton does but is 100x more corrupt. He is the one who is not transparent, not truthful, conflicted, and who runs a pay-to-play charity - and yet he accuses Clinton of all these things without an evidence. He just makes things up and it sticks.

People and the media are truly sheep.

 

agreed

 

Amen. I keep wanting to say to the media, "Have you ever seen the movie 'Wag the Dog'? Your dog is being wagged, HARD. And as long as it's good for ratings, who cares, right?"

Now they've got Trump within a pneumonia cough of the White House....the most vile, putrid scum, canker-sore-excuse-of-a-human-being, Mussolini's love child with an orangutan....finally CNN is doing some pushback on him but it doesn't really matter.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if at the debates they ask Hillary the most complex arcane sort of question (once they get past the email stuff), and then turn to:

Anderson Cooper: "Mr Trump, your turn....what is your favorite flavor ice cream?"

Trump: "You see, I told you this debate was gonna be rigged. Get Hannity in here."

Anderson Cooper: "Sir, wrong network...."

 

It doesn't matter. Nothing bad Trump does.

 

That would have been a awesome title.

 

The main points that shapes my views on the Clinton Foundation are Bill and/or Hillary's lack of:
- Transparency - Such as donor lists and donor lists of its subsidiaries that are sometimes co-founded by billionaire magnates
- Accountability - Clinton loyalists specifically those with the direct ear of Bubba are rewarded over competance
- Regard for clearly separating conflicts of interest - Any businessman or politician worth its salt would use the Clinton Foundation as a bargaining chip, yet it's on Hillary and her handlers to make the right decision each and every time
- Decision making as public figures. The latest in the long list of face palms.

I wouldn't care as much if Hillary hasn't been on center stage of American politics for the last decade. It's like they had a House of Cards moment where the conventional thought was for Bill to fade into the shadows while Hillary rose into the Presidency. Because of how the CF grew into a 2 billion dollar organization, they each had to agree to pivot on living with both. Typical Clinton cake havings and eatings by steam rolling consistently growing concerns over grey areas and it's undesirable optics.

While this doesn't seem to be a criminal scandal, this is not a manufactured controversy to me. Nor is it entirely dissimilar to Trump's ongoing questions of dissolving himself from a conglomerate valued on the strength of his name (which I unfortunately derailed in this topic).

The moves the Clintons make rarely work in isolation. For whatever reasons Bubba urged Hillary to take the SoS job. When accepting the position, for whatever reasons, Hillary reneged on her signed pledges not only to create clear boundaries to prevent conflicts of interests, but also for releasing the CF's full donor lists every year she's in. For whatever reasons, their best funding years are when she started as SoS. The latest riskier drive to raise 250 million was so that it'd be easier for the CF to last beyond Bubba's true retirement.

For a foundation fueled by the President Clinton brand that reaches across the aisles, I absolutely abhor the blatant intermingling of several personal, public and organizational interests. The lessor examples of presidents, the better. But unfortunately....

Huma is Hillary's right hand and not someone three to five steps removed from her. She's pretty much Hillary's human Blackberry for the last twenty years

Then there's that AP story that gets lambasted by the Clintons through typical "question the source" sandbagging tactics rather than releasing their full donor list and fast tracking the AP's FOIA requests for State Department access to visitor logs for all 8 years.

Huma has also served on the Clinton Foundation along with several other Clinton loyalists, some from Bill's side whom are there more on the merits of their relationship with Bubba rather than their capacity. Others come from Hillary's side who worked under her as SoS and bookended with her current campaign. It doesn't seem like they're getting rich from this, but being in that circle is akin to being set for life in the Clinton mafia. Blumenthal getting 10k a month isn't illegal, but none of this is. It's more business as usual than anything else.

You mean aside from the multi-million dollar speeches Bubba gives that isn't on Foundation time yet veers into talking about Foundation work? Legal? Yes. Ethical? In the case of her or Trump...all is fair, amirite?

The CF may be a good yet flawed and sometimes terribly run non-profit.

I personally will not donate to large non-profits after learning that the Red Cross squandered a half of a billion dollars in donations to Haiti relief/reconstruction efforts that netted only six houses, let alone their PR move of driving empty trucks labeled Red Cross around NY right after Sandy.

You'll see a pattern among some large non-profits that slowly into solely raising money and turning into huge bureaucratic nightmares that requires raising more money.

That 90% number is a fat sack of **** because it adds mismanagement, travel and other logistical, sometimes elective, costs that come with the act of "benefitting the program". It's not a fault of the watchdog, but rather accounting tricks in the IRS forms the watchdogs evaluate. It's a pattern among all non-profits and it isn't resigned to only the Clintons.

After hearing concerns about the Giving Pledge and its vague guarantees required from its participants, I would hope people start increasing their scrutiny because it is the people's money on the line* as a result from lost government revenues from charitable tax breaks that were created in good faith.

An issue is whether I know anything about the Clinton Foundation. If anyone has performed just a cursory amount of reading, they'd see the good it does, but how it does it is a very interesting. In particular, there's no real way to quash these ethical concerns with their model of philanthropy for as long as A) The Clintons have direct attachments to the organization and B) any Clinton is running or believed to be running for future office.

Why should I lower myself down to evaluating based off Trump's standards?

And I'm disappointed at you for consistently jumping to conclusions.




*That is, unless said charity accepts donations from foreign governments and corporations.

 

You can check out accountability and transparency rating. The Clinton Foundation rank high in both. They rank high in financial performance. They rank high for pretty much everything. They do this for charity. They should be praised. But as usual, politic even can turn good deeds into bad. And it's not that hard to do. Everyone makes mistake and it's easy to focus on those and forget, intentionally or not, the larger picture of what the purpose of the foundation is for.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-charity-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks-2016-9


How do they compare...:

 

So basically the accusation with the CF is that somehow Hillary/Bill use the foundation to personally benefit themselves - even though they give over a million dollars a year to the foundation and don't take money out?

How do they benefit when someone makes a donation to the foundation? What do they get? When Bill charges for a speech it has nothing to do with the foundation - the fact that he uses his speech as a forum to promote the clinton foundation and the CGI doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest, it seems like those paying for the speech might complain but that's about it.

So where is the corruption? Where is the pay to play? What's the incentive for the Clintons to do favors for someone who donates money to their charity? Are they doing favors for people who help save people's lives? Is that what the accusation is?