09-15-2016, 10:25 AM
(09-15-2016, 06:23 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Here I am going to make an argument for why Clinton with all her baggage, is more trustworthy than Trump. Clinton is more trustworthy because of her baggage. Anyone who has been a mover-shaker for as long as Clinton and Trump have is going to have baggage. Clinton's baggage is out there for all to see. Are any of the Clinton scandals been of a magnitude that would terminate her career like Jim Wright? No, or it would have already done so. Therefore we can be pretty sure there is nothing in Clinton's past for which she can be blackmailed.
This is not the case with Trump. His baggage is unexamined. We do not know things like to whom does he own money? Who has the goods on him? Does he have any criminal co-conspirators who could send him to prison with their testimony? Were Trump to become president he would become a MUCH bigger trophy than any of his co-conspirators and prosecutors would be falling all over themselves offering immunity to his co-conspirators so that they could take down a sitting president. A president Trump with criminal co-conspirators would certainly be blackmailed by them, as they could credibly threaten to send him to prison at no risk to themselves. It wouldn't be money they want (they would be rich men too) but the sort of favors they expect a president to be able to deliver.
Excellent! It's like knowing that the engine on the 12-year-old used car that you contemplate buying has had an engine overhaul. Yes, the car is old enough and has been driven enough to need an engine overhaul -- but such has been done. I feel more confidence with full disclosure of the faults of someone (I would break off relations with someone with a history of violent, sexual, or drug crime) than someone too good to be true.
Quote:This is why politicians release their tax records and other financial information. By following the money you can find out if the person has any potentially illegal dealings. (Recall they got Al Capone on tax evasion). Trump will not do this because of what is in those records. He has a known history of shady business practices like Trump University, of stiffing creditors, and he been involved in the construction business in New Jersey and elsewhere and so has had dealings with the mob. He operates close to the edge of legality. He likes to take risks has been bankrupt numerous times as a result. He openly admits to bribing politicians. It is virtually certain he is hiding worse stuff than what is currently public.
One can have money from foreign investments so long as one doesn't have appreciable involvement in them other than a stake in ownership and no managerial role (as in shares of Unilever, Philips, Siemens, or Mitsubishi). If one is doing the dealing, then it had better be over the board. I'd be wary of someone having connections to dictatorial regimes. Yes, Truman had some business failures, but those involved no lack of morals.
I fear the connections to organized crime in America. The Clintons apparently have none.
Quote:Trump's situation is far worse than having donors. Politicians throw donors and past associates under the bus when it is politically expedient all the time. Clinton can line her pocket with Wall Street cash and then turn around and stab them in the back if that is what the politics calls for (e.g. Joe Kennedy). Trump cannot do so with past associates who have the goods on him, he would have to comply. This is why if you apply for a job in an intelligence agency they do such a thorough background check. They want to make sure you have no secrets in your past that would allow a foreign agent to "turn" you. Presidents do not get vetted in this way.
Yes, they can. With the Clintons it is one deal, one time.
Quote:For all we know Russian intelligence has their hooks into the Donald, he certainly seems to have a "special relationship" with Russia. He is willing to throw NATO, Japan, Korea, even Israel under the bus at times--but not Russia. Special relationships are not unprecedented. The Bush family had a special relationship with the Saudis, but that was public knowlege. They even called Prince Bandar "Bandar Bush" because he we so close to the Bushes. And it mattered, had Reagan been president in 1990 would have been no Gulf War or Iraq war, no 911, no Afghanistan and no ISIS, becasue Reagan was not an oilman and had no special relationship with the Saudis. Recall that the Saudis had orchestrated an oil embargo against America just three years before Reagan's first serious presidential run. This embargo triggered a premature recession which adversely affected Republican electoral prospects in 1976, so I would doubt Reagan had a favorable opinion of the Saudis.
I trust NATO, South Korea, Japan, and Israel more than I trust the dictatorial government in Russia.
Quote:Just what shit will we be stuck with that come out of special relationships Trump has from his secret foreign dealings over the years. What favors will Trump's past associates be able to extort from him?
Acquiescence in aggression, corruption, and violation of human rights. If there should be a dispure between China and the Phillipines, which country's leadership has more Trump hotels?
Quote:In his defense, Trump has hinted that he plans to delegate the job of head of government to Mike Pence, while retaining the role of Head of State. But the president is also the Commnder in Chief. This cannot be delegated to Pence, because the chain of command does not go through the vice president, it goes through the Secretary of Defense. We don't know who that will be--perhaps he will keep his predecessor's guy like Obama did. Does Trump plan to delgate this job to him? If he does this, then he becomes a figurehead like Queen Elizabeth. There isn't much to be gained by blackmailing the Queen. So maybe he neutralizes the threat of extortion. But if so, voters should know that they are not voting for Trump but for Mike Pence (plus Ash Carter, or the guy Trump picks to be SecDef).
Does Donald Trump know anything about national defense? Sure, Barack Obama went in as a complete neophyte
but he was at least coachable. He wasn't going to do something dirty to the military or to the intelligence services. So he has a little project for the military and the intelligence services: capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Seal Team 6 may have gotten Barack Obama re-elected.
But that's all for nought. I would no rather see the prospect of a second term of Mitt Romney than a first term of Donald Trump. I am a very partisan Democrat, but I can see a huge difference. In my wont for seeing historical alternatives I can just see Barack Obama with a Boomer-like disdain, as common on the Left, for the military and intelligence services, and Osama bin Laden lingering along into mid-2013, when President Mitt Romney gets to announce the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Donald Trump? Just a crank on the fringe of the political scene. Barack Obama? The new Jimmy Carter.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.