Why Trump's naked corruption is less interesting than conspiracy theories about Clinton

Some of that is simple partisanship, though. In the worst days of the Bush admin when the disastrousness of the Iraq invasion was evident, and the scandals were pouring in, and his utter incompetence was evident to most, there was that 35%, all die-hard Republicans, who approved of him. Clinton is the #1 demogorgon for the GOP, and has been heavily demonized by the far left to boot, and nothing can really change that. Clinton’s approval numbers among Dems. are at the same level as Obama’s in 2012 at this point in the race, FWIW.

I wanted Sanders to win in part because he didn’t have all that baggage that really can’t be dropped, though if Sanders were in the race now, you can rest assured the hate machine on the right against the socialist would be in full force and his numbers wouldn’t be stellar either. There are partisan Dems who loathed Sanders who’d be likely to continue bearing grievances, just as some Sanders backers bear grievances against Clinton from the ugly primary.


The other dynamic here is we are comparing the business world with the political world. Politicians are tasked with working in the public interest, businessmen are not (with the caveat being “shareholders”, thus Romney could screw over employees in the service of the shareholders.) Politicians are under a lot more scrutiny 24-7, they are on the verge of losing their jobs every election, all an opponent has to do is publicize an indiscretion. New Yorkers are well aware of Trump’s myriad business and personal problems, but he was never in danger of losing his job, they couldn’t ‘vote him out.’

Regarding Jill Stein, as progressive as I am I still don’t see her as up to the task of actually running the country. I would worry more about her setting back the progressive movement with incompetence and intransigence. Whatever Hillary’s faults she is still a seasoned vet who knows all the players involved-- getting legislation passed isn’t just dictating goals, it’s also making deals with congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Example: Obama wanted a health care bill that was a lot more progressive than what we got, but even his own party wasn’t up to the task and we got something watered down. It was still better than nothing. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Again, I think the bigger issue is the corruptible way that Washington DC works, and faulting the Clintons for being good at playing the game is pointless.


Don’t be disingenuous. You said something dumb, you’re being called out on it.

You kind of blew it then, by adding in “Clinton’s corruption (which dwarfs Trump’s in my opinion)” because that’s not only fucking absurd, but it implies that the serious accusations of corruption against Clinton are valid - but they exist only in conspiracy theories. So you just utterly demolished your own initial point. Any potentially valid accusations against Clinton are so far below what Trump is not just accused of, but has admitted to (and multiple times over). Which all just goes to reinforce the point of the articles under discussion.


Tangential anecdote:
Friend recently recounted the Emperor’s New Cloths for a younger audience who’d not heard it.
Original point of story was lost amid audience accusations the emperor had been body shamed.


I Googled him and he seems perfectly qualified to be on an advisory board. Degrees in Economics and History and was a CEO dealing with market technology and security.
ABC news’ assessment that his “only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how”, seems subjective to me.

And what would be the point of being assigned to a security advisory board, seems stressful.
Usually aren’t big donors made a diplomat of someplace like Jamaca or Guam or somplace nice?


Do you, just don’t forget the downticket elections.These can matter much more than who gets stuck in the white house.

Writing about Trump’s corruption long ago hit the law of diminishing
returns, because everyone knows he’s corrupt and his supporters like it.
It is news to no-one. Clinton, however, is clean—but her
supporters waver at the thought of dirt. Typhoid and swans, it all comes
from the same place.
This is part of why I think her strategy to go hard for conservative right-wing voters on the presumption that there’s a lot of disaffected Trump supporters who don’t want him in office has some flaws. From where I’m sitting, it looks like the people who support Trump do it because he - in some twisted, fun-house-mirror way - can echo the concerns that they have, however racist and bonkers and naive. Trying to get those people on board with smart policy and America’s Dad Joke doesn’t seem like it would pay big dividends. (I could be under-estimating the people abandoning the Trump Ship, of course!) If she wants to shake his support, she should be taking more cues from Sanders and his ilk, less form Tim Kaine and his milquetoast pandering.

Meanwhile, Clinton supporters are a motley crew of people brought together to mostly hold their nose and pick the least offensive option. It shouldn’t be too hard - strategically - to get a lot of them to abandon her. Especially since, you know, she’s struggling to get her practical ideas heard over “Trump Bad!”

All this focus on how awful and racist and awful and also awful Trump is doesn’t look from my perspective to change the game in any meaningful way. If she wants to hit Trump’s base, she needs to sound like she gets it. That’s something she struggles with, though.


the second link in the article – with the text “plain facts about Trump’s corruption aren’t covered much” – seems broken. in my browser it leads to: --http://%3Ca%20href%3D/

can do :wink: was it supposed to be this one?



I guess that depends on how you define “corruption.” I am amazed at the long list of stains on Trump’s record, some of which are legal but morally suspect (abuse of eminent domain laws, for example), a lot of this stuff wasn’t common public knowledge until he decided to run for President, and it just keeps coming out. I mean. . . buying up all the land around a mansion and posting “no trespassing” signs, thus devaluing the mansion, allowing him to snatch it up for pennies on the dollar-- I guess it’s not “corruption” but it’s something only a cartoon villain would do, and Trump bragged about it. Is there an analogue of that for Hillary Clinton?


Did you really just do that?

Fuckin’ A, Rob.

When did the standards for intellectual discourse start to resemble a freakin’ limbo contest???



Trump is blatantly crooked, and this is obvious to everyone observing (although his supporters see this as a positive). It’s a “dog bites man” story.

Clinton is crooked in a more subtle/sophisticated way; she’s the embodiment of modern American pay-to-play politics. It’s a story that requires more detail, and one which is likely to have a much greater long-term impact on the world.

Trump is suicidal lunacy that probably won’t succeed. Clinton is suicidal lunacy that almost certainly will succeed.


Guess you missed the part where I said I was postibg from an adroid phone.

Expecting intellectual discourse in a thread about a presidential election is a tough ask. You’re not going to point out long time BB’er calling other long time BB’er a ‘Fox news troll’ for being critical of HRC?(which is apparently verboten around here now).

1 Like

Fair point, but that still doesn’t mean accepting the bare minimum.

I get it that you’re on a phone, but at least say that you’ll link them later when you’re on a better interface device; otherwise, it just seems like intellectual laziness.

Google it” is an obtuse response used by the lowliest dregs of the internet… and frankly, it’s beneath you.


Did she? Cite please. Also, how about C. Powell and Dubbya? Do they get a pass?



Wish I could. Internet is off because I am moving. It’s equally low when discussing Clinton’s ethics, to say ‘give me three unambiguous examples’. Clinton behaviour is quintessentially ambiguous. It’s the neccessary ingredient. She’s not going to respond to a goldman sachs lobbyists request with a memo saying ‘$225k and I’ll think about it’. But she’ll accept grotesque speaking fees from them with a wink. Not trying to drag you into this, just explaining why the whole argument is just stupid to begin with. This is modern politics, Clinton isn’t especially evil, she’s just good at it.

Also, the waters be muddy:

1 Like

Justification tactic; hard pass.

We’re done here.

Hope your move goes well, and that you have a wonderful day.

1 Like

Sophistry. I expounded on your first clame prior to explaining the dogma. We’ll have to agree to disagree. Thanks :wink: , you too.

I’d have thought the phrase “false equivalence” would carry more currency here. The admittedly questionable things Clinton has been accused of have been outright eclipsed, and in spades, by the things Trump has publically bragged about.

The reason that Trump corruption is less interesting is because he owns up to it, in his own shitheaded way. His supporters don’t care. Clinton’s corruption is much more nebulous and “unresolved,” which gives her opponents endless opportunities to “but what if…” Which is a much funner game to play than responding “yeah, and?”

You can’t absolutely conclusively prove that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, made some pretty fucking spectacular shots. So the JFK assassination remains “mysterious.”

You’ll notice that there aren’t many conspiracy theories regarding John Hinckley Jr. or Squeaky Fromme or Gavrilo Princip.


You know, come to think of it, if WW3 had been started by Squeaky Fromme shooting Gerry Ford… I would have been okay with that, in a dramatically hilarious manner. What a way to go! If you’re gonna destroy the planet, do it like the Muppets or Mel Brooks woulda. Much better than some stoic standoff between humourless dickheads. Make it a crazy circus and nobody would be too bummed out.

You know you’re crazy when you try to assassinate Gerald Ford. What difference was that going to make then? I imagine the Kremlin like the end of Burn After Reading. “Why do we care about this?”

1 Like