Donald Trump called the Clinton Foundation "the most corrupt enterprise in political history". Of course Trump is wrong. This is the "foundation" of democracy: money buys access. If there is no access to Bill or Hillary Clinton, why would anybody donate millions to their foundation? For example, if you want to donate a million to fight aids in Africa, you can give it directly to an organization on the ground such as Doctors Without Borders. You don't have to channel the money through the Clintons. It is expected that if you are a big donor you will get to meet with Bill and/or Hillary. So unless you get a direct favor from them that is illegal, I don't see anything different than the usual practice in politics. Donald Trump bragged about the Clintons going to his wedding because he gave them money. So if he is accusing them of accepting bribes, then was he bribing them?
The Supreme Court basically agree with me that money buys access in Citizens United. It said that "ingratiation and access" were "not corruptions". Essentially, it means that people with a lot of money have more "free speech" than other people. I mean, do you think that a corporation donates a huge amount of money to a candidate because he would be good for the country? The donation guarantees at least access but often more than that, such as a vote. Since this is the game that is always played in Washington, I don't see any legal problem with Clinton meeting someone who has donated to their foundation.
Of course, no legal problem does not mean no political problem. Once again, the Clintons get into an unnecessary problem because of the appearance of impropriety. I am sure it was her plan to run for president even back when she was secretary of state. So she should have limited her access to donors even back then. And certainly once she announced her candidacy, she should have cut her tie to the foundation as she has said she would do once she became president. As I said before, the Clintons are such smart politicians, I am surprised they keep making these unforced errors. That is why people are suspicious of them. It is lucky for her that her opponent is Donald Trump.
I am starting to think that both candidates are trying to throw the election. I've never seen such poor campaigning. Maybe Clinton is too arrogant to think she will lose? The money pouring in is unbelievable, so maybe she can get cocky, though it doesn't help her image.
ReplyDeleteThey had a black Trump supporter on a panel recently and I keep hearing about how Trump is a job creator. This is true, but he also has caused losses in jobs and no one talks about the bankruptcies.
Also, I find it kind of interesting that more of Clinton's emails have been found. Especially after Trump pleaded with the Russians to try to find them. But no one is talking about that.
Oh, did you see that idiot Wiener guy, who is sending out pictures of himself to women again? Talk about sabotaging a campaign. His wife has a big role in the Clinton campaign, and they can't reel this guy in. What is his wife's next step? Divorce or stand by your man?
-LBOAYM
Well, Wiener's wife is finally separating from him. I don't know why she stayed with him except perhaps she took advice from Hillary. I don't think he is trying to sabotage the campaign since he was a Democrat. Maybe she stayed all this time because of the son. Hopefully the kid is not damaged by this.
ReplyDeleteWell, I didn't mean that he meant to sabotage the campaign. But he has brought bad publicity to it again. His wife had no choice but to separate, but I wonder if they'll get back together after the election.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you haven't mentioned the Colin Kaepernick situation. I don't really know what to think about this. My initial reaction was a little anger, but then it became indifference. Sometimes, I think we overly passionate about things like symbols. I don't think I could ever not stand for the anthem or burn the flag. But if his motivation was to bring attention to the police shootings, he did a good job.
People say that he should have used other means, but this way was most effective, because people are debating about it now. However, they're all debating about the act and not the reason. So in a way, I feel like he failed in that regard.
I also asked myself how I would have felt if he did it and the meaning was in support of police officers. Would the reaction be different for other people? It would have been the same for me either way.
Again, I have friends on both sides. Some are veterans and kind of old school patriots and then I have friends of color who applaud this.
Onto more serious subjects. I am also surprised you didn't address the casting of your favorite show, Dancing with the Stars (a show I don't watch)!
I heard that Ryan Lochte will be on this season along with one of the women gymnasts. I also heard that Calvin Johnson will be on. I already am penciling in the woman gymnast, though I kind of wish it was Ali Raisman instead. I haven't seen the rest of the cast though, so I'll be making my un-informed and amateur picks later on. I also heard Max was back. I am assuming he is some kind of professional dancer!
College football (a sport I follow) is around the corner. I saw that Cal played Hawaii in Australia. What kind of goofiness is this? It looks like Hawaii will once again have a bad team. I don't understand why they would accept a match vs. Michigan in Ann Arbor this weekend after coming back from Australia. To boot, they're playing at noon, eastern time, which means that it's like 4 or 5 in the morning in Hawaii. I predict that Michigan will trounce Hawaii 65-3.
As far as the Big Ten goes (the only conference I will be making predictions), I will pick MSU vs. Iowa again in the Big Ten championship game, with MSU going to another playoff game. Yes, I just jinxed them, but I call it like I see it!
-LBOAYM