The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    tmccarthy0's picture

    TrumpPence2016: The Long Con

    By tmccarthy0 on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 10:54am |

    It's weird to watch the extreme double standard when it comes to everything Clinton.  While I do believe that HRC and WJC must step away entirely from their foundation, because if they do not, the right wing will destroy it, with help from liberals.  Something must be done to save it.  

    It is amazing how much Trump gets away with, and there are articles about these scandals, but they aren't indicative of the nature of the Trump campaign, so the press moves on. How much time has the national news spent discussing this Pam Biondi scandal? This is a real example of the quid-pro-quo everyone wants to the HRC to be guilty of, even though no evidence to date has been presented to prove the assertions. It is a double standard to spend endless, breathless moments on non-scandals ignoring real financial shenanigans.

    What am I talking about? Well, I am talking about the incredible amounts of money Trump is paying his companies with money from those donating to his Presidential campaign.  To me, this all seems pretty scandalous! 

    Donald's doings seem pretty sketchy to me, far sketchier than some meet and greets with people who had given to the Foundation. It should be obvious to anyone watching this farce that this is a money making scheme for that Orange Buffoon, and this ultimately gets him out of debt. As we have all read he and his companies are approximately 650 million dollars in debt.  He also seems to lie to the IRS about money he is giving to non-profits, no wonder he is being audited endlessly. 

    There is an obvious double standard here! It's glaring! It is infuriating! It's a con and has been all along. You might not like HRC but this isn't a con for her or a money making scheme, it is about having long lasting impact on our government by implementing solid liberal policies which will have long-term impact on our nation. What is Trump's ultimate goal here since he has no real policies? His one and only goal is to make money. These are important differences when selecting our President; people need to know about these differences.

    Comments

    You're so right!  Thanks for writing here, Teri.  The double standard has hit a new low with all of the attention still on Hillary's emails while Trump gets away with bribing a state official in order to keep from being prosecuted.  The recklessness of the media during this campaign is just astonishing.


    by Ramona on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 11:52am

    Thanks Mona. It is hard to watch this and not see the glaring differences with how these candidates are treated. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:44am

    Well put Mac.

    To rephrase Twain:

    Always do right and the meanies will attack you forever.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

    I think about Carter and all the good things he and his wife have done for humanity.

    The Clintons procured a lot of money for a lot of causes that really help humanity.

    Aaaahhhhhhhhhh shit.

    Good post!


    by Richard Day on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 1:13pm

    Thank you Dick!


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:45am

    Well done, tmac.  The Post, possibly since they broke the Biondi "contribution" story that's being mostly ignored, agrees with you on the unfair and unbalanced media attention given the two nominees.


    by barefooted on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 1:59pm

    Thanks missy. It is strange that all of the really scandalous stories about Trump aren't discussed for more than five minutes. Oh yes.. Benghazi, Emails, the Foundation, so much innuendo and so little evidence.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:48am

    How the Press is Making the Clinton Foundation into the New Benghazi

    Over the last two weeks, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has taken a hit in the polls, much of it pretty clearly due to aggressive press investigations involving her relationship with the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State. Even Hillary fans should see that these investigations are warranted. After all, Clinton is running for the most powerful office in the world. While she was Secretary of State, her husband was overseeing a $2 billion a year charity. That charity took in donations from foreign governments and individuals with international interests. These facts raise legitimate questions. Did donors to the Foundation get special access to the secretary and the department as a result of their donations? If they did get special access, did they receive any favors? Did Hillary or her staff do anything illegal, unethical, or contrary to U.S. interests or administration policy?

    The good news is that as a result of these investigations we can now answer those questions pretty definitively: no, no, and no. The bad news is that the press doesn’t seem to want to take “no” for an answer, even if the answer is based on the evidence of its own reporting.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 3:09pm

    NOOOOOOOO!!!!  The Clinton Foundation is not a "$2 billion a year charity". For year ending 2014, they had $338 million in revenues & contributions, $250 million in expenses, $440 million in total assets.

    This whole "$2 billion a year" thing started with the WaPo hit job last summer combining all Clinton campaigns, speeches, charity work and anything else over 20 years to declare the supposedly outrageous fundraising $3 billion juggernaut total (ignoring that Obama spent $680 million on re-election with another $400m or so from Dem & PAC support, plus $750 million+ in 2008 plus any additional PAC money - that's pushing $2 billion for 2 elections, no charity work - where's the big horrified story?). The Clintons' included 3 (now 4) presidential campaigns, Senate campaign, governor's campaign, plus the totals over the year for the Foundation.

    It's that old political trick - turn what should be an asset into a liability. Of course her opponent doesn't do charity (he brags about it and forgets to donate). And now the media from left to right is helping him turn it all into a suspicious, sordid source of monied power - while his kids go online to laughingly talk of him as an "outsider" going up against an insider. Uh, outsiders don't own megacasinos and pull down millions on primetime reality shows. How stupid are we?  Plenty.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 3:54pm

    Well, spank me with a wooden spoon. I am in a bit of a financial pickle and have been wracking my brains for a solution. Suddenly the answer arrives on a bogsite.
    With no further ado, I announce:

    MOAT for PRESIDENT
    In your socks you know he is Wet.

    Send all contributions to Crenelated SuperPAC
     


    by moat on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 3:10pm

    LOL. I love your slogan. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 5:51pm

    Sure, good slogan. But look at the polls. As appealing as wet socks are the polls say he's all washed up.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 6:07pm

     

    There is another candidate vying with moat for the third party vote:



    Stiffy's campaign slogan, "Global Warming; for him, it's personal."

    Vote Snow in November!


    by MrSmith1 on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 6:42pm

    Stiffy the snowman has never been vetted. Rumor has it he's mostly yellow snow. The truth will out in the campaign.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 6:58pm

    Breaking News!  Stiffy's campaign has released this response:  "The rumors being circulated that yellow snow is, in any way a part of our campaign, and/or our candidate is, frankly, beneath contempt and not worthy of comment. Stiffy the Snowspondy has a long and distinguished career helping people of snow no matter their color or their viscosity." 


    by MrSmith1 on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 7:52pm

    Stiffy the Snowspondy has a long and distinguished career helping people of snow no matter their color or their viscosity." 

    OMG you guys are killing me.. laugh LOL. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:41am

    LOL, I know I've seen him! 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:40am

    LOL.. You people are seriously killing me! 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:50am

    Kidding aside, great piece, TMC.  I think this is one of most frustrating things about this election.  The media's need to create a horse race has led them to minimize Hillary's accomplishments and maximize her negatives, even to the point of repeating and encouraging belief in "scandals" which have little or no merit.  With Trump, they do the exact opposite;  ignore all the proven negatives and maximize the little positive there is about him. For example, how Presidential he looked while in Mexico. (rolls eyes, face palm.)  This is the only way they could get this election to be a horse race.  And, sadly, it seems to be, at least for the moment, working.   Hopefully, after Labor Day, the sheer volume of facts proving Trump is completely unprepared and unqualified to be President will overwhelm the media's attempts to prop him up.


    by MrSmith1 on Sat, 09/03/2016 - 6:58pm

    MrSmith1 ...

    The media stirring the pot?

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 2:47am

    Ah, the Tao of News with co-anchors, Yin and Yang.  wink


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 6:53am

    Thanks Mr. Smith.

    With Trump, they do the exact opposite;  ignore all the proven negatives and maximize the little positive there is about him. For example, how Presidential he looked while in Mexico. (rolls eyes, face palm.) 

    This.. this is so true.. Ugh, rolls eyes is right. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 09/04/2016 - 9:43am