Well Roadie, Trump also donated to the Clinton foundation, so how do you separate the "Good" donors from the "Bad"?

Also by the numbers, it seems the Clintons are pretty good "business" people too.

You have to measure both Clinton and Trump with the same stick, in my eyes he is lacking..........but that's my opinion.

GOOD JOB SO FAR GUYS, LET'S KEEP UP THE CIVIL CONVERSATION.......this message has been approved by the OP.

 

Sure, all of the people or countries who donated expected something in return and I'm sure most of them got it. But a low life like Hellery who will sell out her country for money is the last person who should be in the white house. Trump has said numerous times that he donated money to everybody, both sides of the political spectrum to stay on their good side when he needed something. Unfortunately, that is the way big business is done. when I worked for a elec utility co. the "employee" pac gave money to both parties. It was basically non-partisan, just tried to curry favor with all of the politicians for potential rate increase approval etc.

The Clinton foundation is a tax free "charity". And they are giving 5% of the donations to charitable purposes. The remaining money is a tax free slush fund for the Clintons. I don't understand how an organization like that qualifies for tax free status. Makes you wonder how much salary the 3 Clintons are giving themselves to run the charity.

 

The Clinton foundation is rotten to the core, we both agree on that. Anyone in their right mind knows that. My question is knowing how skewed from being above board the Clinton Foundation is, a sharp business man should know the difference, what did Trump hope to "get" for his donation. It's things like that that makes me think Trump isn't the best choice.

On top of that I think that the 24 hour coverage (for free) by the news media has given a lot to his name recognition (that would be the slack jaws Raoul referred to earlier). That same media ignores Cruz unless Trump says something bad about him. I don't let the media pick my candidate. That is how we ended up with McCain and then Romney.

 

Hellery when she was Sec of State approved the sale of most of the US uranium reserves to a Russian co. after Bill was paid $500k for a speech in Moscow. I think the word for that is "Traitor".

 

Roadie, I agree completely about the Hildibeast, she belongs in jail. What I fail to understand is how that relates to Trump. What did he expect from her for his donations? He is just as much a part of the corruption as any of them, where is his "come to Jesus" moment that makes him all better now? I think more people should take a few steps back and take a better look at both Trump and Cruz and make their decision with a clearer head. Like I said in an earlier post this is exactly how us on the left coast ended up with Arnold the "Terminator", and he ended up being a real POS.

I also think that his backing out of the upcoming debate, where he has to face Cruz head on, is wrong. Just when we get the field whittled down to where there could be a good side by side comparison, Trump chickens out. If he is afraid of Megan Kelly and Cruz then how can we expect him to be any tougher than Putin or the President of Mexico or any other "crisis" he would face in office? Will he confront them with a "scheduling conflict" too?

Say what you will about Cruz, but he is willing to take the fire like calling out McConnel out on the senate floor. What will Trump do, make a donation?

 

No he never backed out of the Utah debate. The last debate was supposed to be the LAST one but the RNC scheduled the one in Utah without consulting Trump. The first that he knew about it was when the RNC announced it via Fox News late on the 14th. By that time Trump had already committed to another speaking engagement at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Conference. Besides I'm sure that that will influence a lot more people than another public Trump bashing session by Megan Kelly! I saw the FIRST announcement of the Utah debate but I can't find it now but here is the UPI announcement from the same day (the 14th) .

I'm SURE that the lose of the Utah debate is going cost Fox a LOT of potential income and I'm SURE that they'd like to blame it on Trump or on someone other than themselves!

You need to stop believing everything that the news media feeds you and go do some research for yourself.

 

That's funny, IIRC I heard them say something about another debate at the end of the last one. I might have to go back and look at the recording if I didn't erase it. Either way he has made NO offer to go head to head with Cruz. Plus Cruz offered to go one on one with Trump early on and it was crickets from the Trump campaign. I can't help but feel that Trump is all smoke and mirrors. I know I won't change your mind, but if you do change you don't have to tell us. just having some fun, don't take that wrong.

Trump also said he NEVER said he would pay the legal fees for someone that smacked any protester at his speeches..........but I have heard him say that he would. That's the sliding truth scale I mentioned earlier.

 

If Trump wants to pay the legal fees for the man that smacked that protester then that's no one's business but his own! The ACLU defends unpopular people EVERY day and I don't see anyone jumping up and down about it. And the ACLU is FAR from being the only person or group that does so. Consider this, if that man wasn't able to pay for his own defense, then you and I and and the other TAXPAYERS would be paying for a public defender, so if Trump does pay for it then it's one less bill that you and I will be paying for!

The trouble with the so called Fox News debates is that they weren't actually debates, they were name calling contests and opportunities for Megan Kelly and the other "moderators" to make unfounded accusations and to take the candidates previous statements and try to use them out of context. By the standards of the previous "debates", then a WWE Wrestling contest should also be called a "debate"! Cruz and Trump and the others have "debated" each other several times already so I see nothing to be gained from another bash-the-candidate session run by the same old people asking the same old questions to the same old candidates (minus one). I think a Q and A session with an entirely different group like AIPAC is going to produce some much more interesting debate. Particularly since Hellery and Biden are both supposed to be there and I think, Kasick is now going to participate. But of course, Megan Kelly won't be able to control the questioning there and AFIK Fox News isn't hosting it so they're both not going to be able to make money off of their usual three ring circus act so they're both squealing like a couple of stuck pigs!

 

Cruz is not so squeaky clean either. When Cruz was running for the senate in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose.

Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns.

None of the candidates are perfect.

By the way, Heidi Cruz worked for Goldman Sachs since 2005. GS has been very influential in U.S. politics donating much money.

 

The few replies to this remarkably civil thread have mentioned several questionable business dealings involving the Clinton Foundation. So I’d like to express my opinion on business and politics because as much as most of us would like to say they’re separate, they’re not – and never will be.

First of all, let me ask everyone a simple question: When somebody (anybody) mentions the words “politics” or “politician,” what immediately comes to mind? Are there warm, fuzzy thoughts or did you just roll your eyes and moan? For most folks, I’d suggest it’s the latter. So I think it’s safe to say that most of us don’t particularly care for either politics or politicians.

But earlier I mentioned that politics and business are closely related. Why is that? Well, speaking as one who spent 36 years working in “big business,” I can truthfully tell you that there are lots of petty (and not so petty) politics involved in running any business. And there are plenty of people in successful businesses who got to be successful largely by being “politicians.” (And generally speaking, these folks are despised by most of their co-workers.) But these folks are definitely the minority.

So where do politics really come into play in business? For one thing, businesses pay a huge portion of the total tax bill in this country. If you think your individual taxes are high, wait till you see what big – and small – businesses pay. And what do businesses expect for this huge burden? Just like you and I, they expect something in return. (What do you think all of the Lobbies do in Washington anyway?) The main point I want to make here is that any successful businessperson will have to be at least somewhat involved in politics just to survive.

But where does business come into play in politics? Hmmm, that’s a tougher one. In business, you either make money – or at least break even – or you go bankrupt. And you can only charge what your customers are willing to pay for your services. In the federal government, you can pretty well charge whatever you want for your services - through taxes. And if that isn’t enough to cover your costs, you can simply borrow or print more money. (The current administration does that for roughly 1/3 of what they spend.) Oh, and by law, you cannot go bankrupt – no matter how upside down you get. So I’d suggest that anybody who’s spent their entire career in politics has a pretty distorted view of how the world really works. Said another way, there are politics in business, but there isn’t nearly enough business in politics.


Getting back to politics, business and politicians though, who do you want running this country? Do you want a person with extensive business experience (only one candidate) or a career politician – everyone else? I sure as hell don’t agree with everything Donald Trump says or does, but all of the other choices are all non-starters for me.

 

Very well stated and I agree wholeheartedly. Just one more thing I would add. Corporations. etc do not pay taxes, only people pay taxes. Business has to pass its tax burden on to its customers/clients. That is every one of us.

 

Great post 2Stroked! Both of the last two posts get to the most important issue that I think concerns MOST Americans. I simply can't understand why anyone would support one of the other career politicians after the POOR job that they've done in running this country. Kasich has the most experience of any of the politicians in the running IMO and I think that he understands that problem but even he has resorted to MORE taxation in an attempt to fix the problem of OVER SPENDING by Ohio and by the previous Bush administration and MOST administrations have engaged in and that the current administration has increased to records levels. 2Stroked is right, any business that over spend as bad as the government has would quickly be out of business. Business people understand that but NONE of the politicians do. Consider Bernie, he's still promising FREE college tuition, free medical, etc etc etc with no plan on how to pay for it.

 

This times eleventy billion! I do not understand why this concept is so hard for people to understand.

 

My youngest kid is eighteen now and a senior in high school, on Monday she asked me who she vote for in the primary. I told her it's her right to vote for whom ever she wants and she doesn't have to tell anyone who she chose.

She told me alot of kids at school were going to vote for Bernie, and asked my opinion. I told her that the free college might sound good on paper, but it will cost me, her and every other taxpayer alot more than just sending her to college and paying for it outright. It's like renters voting yes for a school levy because they don't have to pay the increased property taxes, and their kids get a free education on my dime.

I personally have a huge problem with renters being able to vote on issues the affect property taxes, but that's how things are done here around north east Ohio. I've worked hard to get where I am financially and can afford to send my kid to college, I should not have to pay for your kid because you were to lazy or stupid to be a position to send your kid to college. You should have saved some of that money you got from selling crack on the corner, instead of pumping it into your veins, then I wouldn't have to pay for your kid to go to college and eventually drop out and end up selling crack on the corner with you.

 

Red,

You should ask your 18 YO how she feels about paying EXTRA taxes for the rest of her life so that everyone that follows her can go to college for free. Example, if her college costs say $10,000 per year then point out that she can expect to pay $10,000 per year for the rest of her life for that benefit! And that's not including inflation and/or population growth.

The fact that so many students are all for this shows that they (A) have never thought his out or (B) plan on never working or paying taxes.