Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:04
Subject: Re:S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
OP I don't understand all the financial stuff to be honest. But here's what I understand:
Secretary Clinton has released her tax returns, and has had her financial life in the public eye all the years she or her husband have been elected officials (which is a LOT of years!)
Donald Trump has not released his tax returns for public scrutiny. Until he does, I assume he is hiding something big, and shady.
Secretary Clinton has released her tax returns, and has had her financial life in the public eye all the years she or her husband have been elected officials (which is a LOT of years!)
Donald Trump has not released his tax returns for public scrutiny. Until he does, I assume he is hiding something big, and shady.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:03
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:Trump doesn't owe anyone anything. He is brand new to politics.
The Clintons have 50 years of playing the game and trading favors.
The Clintons are in a totally different league. They are part of the problem - political cronyism.
The American people are sick and tired of this and these Washington insider types.
If you don't get this, then you are going to be very surprised when Trump wins in Nov.
FYI. Trump did fund his primary (to the tune of $55 million) and he never said he was going to be able to fund the general election.
to summarize:
Trump has spent $55 million of his own money to win.
The Clintons have collected $229 million of other people's money (which is now their own personal fortune) since Bill left office and while Hillary was still in office (Senator and SOS).
This is a big and real difference.
Well said. Thank you.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:01
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele,
then my point is even more relevant.
If Trump is not as wealthy as he claims, then $55 million is a huge chunk of change for him.
he is even more altruistic than I thought!
Seriously? I've also read how US banks won't touch Trump, how he keeps borrowing from European and other sources. Deutsche Bank is a big backer of his, which has its own problems.
Do you think he is stupid enough to borrow money to pay for his campaign? Of course not. Why would he do that? He is obviously spending money that he already has.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:59
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
I don't think it is laughable at all.
I think Trump isn't getting enough credit for paying for his own campaign.
I think it is commendable.
And I don't think the Clintons are getting criticized enough (in the lamestream media) for cashing in on their connections and her public sector jobs.
I think Trump isn't getting enough credit for paying for his own campaign.
I think it is commendable.
And I don't think the Clintons are getting criticized enough (in the lamestream media) for cashing in on their connections and her public sector jobs.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:59
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:Jeff Steele,
then my point is even more relevant.
If Trump is not as wealthy as he claims, then $55 million is a huge chunk of change for him.
he is even more altruistic than I thought!
Seriously? I've also read how US banks won't touch Trump, how he keeps borrowing from European and other sources. Deutsche Bank is a big backer of his, which has its own problems.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:57
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
This post is beyond laughable
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:54
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
PS Hillary probably could have self-funded too but she chose not to do so.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:52
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Jeff Steele,
then my point is even more relevant.
If Trump is not as wealthy as he claims, then $55 million is a huge chunk of change for him.
he is even more altruistic than I thought!
then my point is even more relevant.
If Trump is not as wealthy as he claims, then $55 million is a huge chunk of change for him.
he is even more altruistic than I thought!
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:51
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump doesn't owe anyone anything. He is brand new to politics.
The Clintons have 50 years of playing the game and trading favors.
The Clintons are in a totally different league. They are part of the problem - political cronyism.
The American people are sick and tired of this and these Washington insider types.
If you don't get this, then you are going to be very surprised when Trump wins in Nov.
FYI. Trump did fund his primary (to the tune of $55 million) and he never said he was going to be able to fund the general election.
to summarize:
Trump has spent $55 million of his own money to win.
The Clintons have collected $229 million of other people's money (which is now their own personal fortune) since Bill left office and while Hillary was still in office (Senator and SOS).
This is a big and real difference.
I think I would need to personally audit those figures before I would believe anything out of Team Trump given their track record on truthiness about this issue.
Luckily for you (and all of us) - we have this entity called the Federal Election Commission and candidates have to make filings on a regular basis...and so you can see for yourself that the $55 million figure is true.
Geez. You are ignorant.
jsteele
07/23/2016 16:42
Subject: Re:S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
OP, agree or disagree with how the Clintons made money, they made money and have cash in the bank. Trump, on the other hand, is leveraged out the wazoo. He is highly dependent on some shady financiers. If Goldman Sachs is able to pull Clinton's strings, a lot worse characters are able to pull Trump's. Take a look at this article that I just finished reading:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
"All the other discussions of Trump's finances aside, his debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. This is in just one year while his liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks."
"Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin."
This article argues that Trump's constant praise of Putin and his support for Russia-friendly policies is a result of his dependence on Russian financing. I don't know that I'm ready to believe that, but it is something to consider.
If the Clintons have to choose between US and Russian interests, they will choose US if for no other reason then it will be more rewarding to them and their cronies. Trump, on the other hand, may have to consider the possibility of facing personal financial collapse if he places US interests over Putin's. That is a scary thought and a lot scarier than the Clintons' greed.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
"All the other discussions of Trump's finances aside, his debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. This is in just one year while his liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks."
"Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia, most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs and sub-garchs close to Vladimir Putin."
This article argues that Trump's constant praise of Putin and his support for Russia-friendly policies is a result of his dependence on Russian financing. I don't know that I'm ready to believe that, but it is something to consider.
If the Clintons have to choose between US and Russian interests, they will choose US if for no other reason then it will be more rewarding to them and their cronies. Trump, on the other hand, may have to consider the possibility of facing personal financial collapse if he places US interests over Putin's. That is a scary thought and a lot scarier than the Clintons' greed.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:39
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:Trump doesn't owe anyone anything. He is brand new to politics.
The Clintons have 50 years of playing the game and trading favors.
The Clintons are in a totally different league. They are part of the problem - political cronyism.
The American people are sick and tired of this and these Washington insider types.
If you don't get this, then you are going to be very surprised when Trump wins in Nov.
FYI. Trump did fund his primary (to the tune of $55 million) and he never said he was going to be able to fund the general election.
to summarize:
Trump has spent $55 million of his own money to win.
The Clintons have collected $229 million of other people's money (which is now their own personal fortune) since Bill left office and while Hillary was still in office (Senator and SOS).
This is a big and real difference.
I think I would need to personally audit those figures before I would believe anything out of Team Trump given their track record on truthiness about this issue.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:34
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
You are saying it's preferable to have millionaires running for office than experienced politicians. That's not right at all. We do not restrict politicians to only rich people, why would that make sense?
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:31
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
I don't care if Trump personally eliminates the deficit until the end of time. He is a bigot and a threat to the US. Money doesn't matter that much.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:30
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Who is being altruistic?
Trump.
Who is greedy and needs to retire from the political scene?
Clinton.
Trump.
Who is greedy and needs to retire from the political scene?
Clinton.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 16:29
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Trump doesn't owe anyone anything. He is brand new to politics.
The Clintons have 50 years of playing the game and trading favors.
The Clintons are in a totally different league. They are part of the problem - political cronyism.
The American people are sick and tired of this and these Washington insider types.
If you don't get this, then you are going to be very surprised when Trump wins in Nov.
FYI. Trump did fund his primary (to the tune of $55 million) and he never said he was going to be able to fund the general election.
to summarize:
Trump has spent $55 million of his own money to win.
The Clintons have collected $229 million of other people's money (which is now their own personal fortune) since Bill left office and while Hillary was still in office (Senator and SOS).
This is a big and real difference.
The Clintons have 50 years of playing the game and trading favors.
The Clintons are in a totally different league. They are part of the problem - political cronyism.
The American people are sick and tired of this and these Washington insider types.
If you don't get this, then you are going to be very surprised when Trump wins in Nov.
FYI. Trump did fund his primary (to the tune of $55 million) and he never said he was going to be able to fund the general election.
to summarize:
Trump has spent $55 million of his own money to win.
The Clintons have collected $229 million of other people's money (which is now their own personal fortune) since Bill left office and while Hillary was still in office (Senator and SOS).
This is a big and real difference.