jsteele
07/23/2016 18:10
Subject: Re:S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote: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.
Isn't that kind of a big deal? To sweep it aside and say "corrupt or not, at least they got the money." So all's well that ends well?
I'm sure you will say that you disagree that it was corrupt because she's your candidate, but many people, including Democrats, believe their actions were corrupt and that Hillary is less than honest and not trustworthy.
First of all, Clinton is not my candidate. But, given two bad choices, I prefer the corrupt candidate who has sold out to US interests rather than the corrupt candidate who is beholden to foreign interests. Do you think that it is a coincidence that Trump relies on financing from Putin cronies and just happens to support pro-Putin policies? Really, that's just a big coincidence? If so, I have tower in Manhattan to sell you (you may want to erase the name on it, however).
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:54
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:This thread is not about the candidates' tax returns.
It is about the big picture.
You seem oblivious.
The Clintons have made a fortune off of public service. Figures range from $130 million to $229 since the year 2000. Mind you, Hillary was not retired. She was still a government employee - Senator and SOS.
It is all listed right there is their tax returns! Yes, what they collected may have been legal (maybe; maybe not; read Clinton Cash; corruption is often subtle.) They have no shame.
Trump is SPENDING his personal fortune in a bid to help improve/change our country.
Trump is SPENDING his own money. The Clintons are COLLECTING other people's money.
Trump spent about $50 million of his own, but says he is worth $10 billion. For an average American, that would be like spending $1,000.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:51
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:He lent money to the campaign, he has every intention of getting that money back. It's just a nice talking point to get the suckers on his side. He is a businessman above all and I have no faith in him choosing country over his business. I am convinced he is in it for his own self-interests.
Not true. He has forgiven $55 million loan he made to his campaign. So he did fund a big part of his campaign on his own. Hillary is collecting money from every special interests you can think of. Her Joint Victory Fund is also a sham. It distributed 1% to the down ballot candidates and funneled the money back to HRC. Google George Clooney and Hillary.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/23/trump-forgives-50-million-in-loans-to-his-campaign-trump-finance-chief.html
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:50
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:Here is another important point about the candidates' tax returns.
Because Hillary and Bill have been working in the public sector for the better part of 40 years and they control a public charity/foundation which is involved in a lot of political type stuff, it was very important for them to release their tax returns. We need transparency with that because of their public positions.
Trump, on the other hand, is a private person who has never held a public sector job before. Therefore, it really isn't anyone's business how much he has earned etc. It is btw. him and the IRS. Trump wasn't in a position as a private person with no power to be corrupted.
Make sense?
No. Other candidates released their tax returns, include ones that made a lot of money in the private sector, like Mitt Romney. When Romney refused, Trump said he would release his own returns, but now he says he can't because of audits. How convenient.
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:48
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
* is generally done
Anonymous
07/23/2016 17:47
Subject: S/O Politicians and Money. Here is the difference btw. Trump and the Clintons.
Anonymous wrote:He lent money to the campaign, he has every intention of getting that money back. It's just a nice talking point to get the suckers on his side. He is a businessman above all and I have no faith in him choosing country over his business. I am convinced he is in it for his own self-interests.
He changed this from "loan" to donation last month. He retired the loans. he had no intention of ever getting paid back anyhow but he made sure his campaign staff changed it on the filings because all you liberals didn't seem to believe him. Itemizing these things as "loans" is what is generally down when candidates use their own money. however, to make sure everyone knows what he meant by that - he changed it.
but of course, if you just read the WaPo/NYT/Huffington Post, this fact was buried.