PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on January 12, 2017, 01:32:48 AM
-
I had been intending to do the math for a while now - at the county level - but have been too busy to spend the modest amount needed to get the county-level election results (there is no federal level repository of those county totals - you have to go to each state or buy the info from someone who has taken the time to aggregate and tabulate the numbers.). So instead I did a quick first pass just counting up the population of the states that Trump won vs Hillary. Much is made of Trump losing the popular vote while winning the electoral vote. And conventional wisdom says that electoral vote assignment rules basically favor states with low population densities, thus giving votes to dead real estate.
By my count, the population of the states won by Trump totals 178,015,927. The total population of the 50 states plus D.C. is 323,127,513. That yields a tad over 55% for Trump.
I gave all of Maine to Clinton even though Trump won 1 of the 4 EVs there (too lazy to break the subtotal out - this was just a first pass, and it's just past midnight as I compose this.)
Breaking things down at the state level is too coarse, though the point of this exercise was to first determine whether the "dead real estate vote" would show Trump losing with respect to the proportion of U.S. population in the states he won. It would be more interesting to see the results at the county or district level, but I may never get to that.
Source for my numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population)
-
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=1670.msg29743;topicseen#msg29743
I used data from the Census Bureau.
-
With so many on the Left talking about popular vote, I've heard some express the idea that apportioning the EVs according to the popular vote breakdown in each state was a good idea - for example, Hillary won 59% of the vote in New York, so she should get 59% of the 29 votes, rounded to 17 votes. Trump would get the other 12. So if that happened, what would the EV count have been?
There is a non-obvious rounding problem due to the small party candidates, sometimes rounding would not apportion all the votes. And I think it's a silly idea, more denial from Hillary supporters so I haven't really gone forward.
-
With so many on the Left talking about popular vote, I've heard some express the idea that apportioning the EVs according to the popular vote breakdown in each state was a good idea - for example, Hillary won 59% of the vote in New York, so she should get 59% of the 29 votes, rounded to 17 votes. Trump would get the other 12. So if that happened, what would the EV count have been?
There is a non-obvious rounding problem due to the small party candidates, sometimes rounding would not apportion all the votes. And I think it's a silly idea, more denial from Hillary supporters so I haven't really gone forward.
Is this what you are looking for?
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/12/22/2016-alternate-electoral-methods-a-preliminary-look_437.html#.WHetDMv2bcs
The President elect still wins, the margin just gets narrower.
-
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=1670.msg29743;topicseen#msg29743
I used data from the Census Bureau.
I was pretty sure I saw a posting on this forum that had basically said the same thing but couldn't find it when I went searching, so I went and did the math last night. Your post was obviously the one I saw, so credit goes to you.
I'm still curious about how the numbers work out when using county level granularity.
-
Is this what you are looking for?
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/12/22/2016-alternate-electoral-methods-a-preliminary-look_437.html#.WHetDMv2bcs
The President elect still wins, the margin just gets narrower.
I think that is basically it...I just never looked for it. Thank you. I suspected it would turn out this way.
-
The States elect the President. It's not a popularity contest, like American Idol.
-
Clearly we need to adjust how many people are allocated to each State.
-
Clearly we need to adjust how many people are allocated to each State.
If HRC was president and was able to pick Supreme Court Justices, I suspect we would find that Republicans are considered 3/5ths of a person.
-
The States elect the President. It's not a popularity contest, like American Idol.
Doveryai, No Proveryai.
I think we should all brush up on our Russian. Good idea.
-
I think we should all brush up on our Russian. Good idea.
Si Senor
-
I think we should all brush up on our Russian. Good idea.
I think you, and the other Democrats are WAY OVERSTATING any Russian influence in the election, but it at least gives them an excuse the media can promote.
-
Is this what you are looking for?
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/12/22/2016-alternate-electoral-methods-a-preliminary-look_437.html#.WHetDMv2bcs
The President elect still wins, the margin just gets narrower.
Good info. Thanks Gary.
-
The States elect the President. It's not a popularity contest, like American Idol.
Actually electors elect the president.
-
Actually electors elect the president.
But the electors are selected state by state, according to the State's rules.
-
But the electors are selected state by state, according to the State's rules.
And there is nothing that forces a state to allow the people to elect the electors.
-
The Democrats, and media screaming about the popular vote, and "Russian hacking" is purely sour grapes to try to de-legitimize Trump. If Hillary had won the election by the actual rules (EC Vote) then there would be no talk about Popular Vote, or any email hacking.
The Dems know the reason for the EC, and they don't like it now because they want to control the country through one or two major metro areas like NYC, and L.A. They now want mob rule because they know it will turn this country into a ONE PARTY RULES system.
-
And there is nothing that forces a state to allow the people to elect the electors.
Thanks for the assist, boys. Libtards don't understand how their own government works. They are such children. I'm beyond happy that we will finally have adults running the country again.
-
But the electors are selected state by state, according to the State's rules.
Number of allocated Electors is governed by Constitutional rule, based on the state's number of congress-peeps. (With the exception of DC.)
-
Number of allocated Electors is governed by Constitutional rule, based on the state's number of congress-peeps. (With the exception of DC.)
And that allocation is designed to give each State "fair" representation.
But I will admit that I cringe when I think about the government deciding what is "fair". But as long as the rules are in place in advance, and everyone agrees to abide by them, then I accept the results. If the R's lost the same way, I might be pissed, but I wouldn't be rioting and protesting.
-
If Hillary had won the election by the actual rules (EC Vote) then there would be no talk about Popular Vote...
...Because she would have won both the popular vote and the EC vote.
Keep in mind, this was a discussion item during 2000 as well. Not that odd, considering we've encroached this territory only twice in modern history.
I'm wondering, were there any other times POTUS won the EC but lost the popular vote?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
And that allocation is designed to give each State "fair" representation.
But I will admit that I cringe when I think about the government deciding what is "fair". But as long as the rules are in place in advance, and everyone agrees to abide by them, then I accept the results. If the R's lost the same way, I might be pissed, but I wouldn't be rioting and protesting.
"Fair" is a tough thing. Is it fair, if you ask a conservative, that California has many more electoral votes than any other state? But anyway, I'm kinda' being nitpicky I admit. I just had an inkling to make it clear that people vote, not states.
So we're clear, though, I am not in favor of moving to a popular vote.
-
...Because she would have won both the popular vote and the EC vote.
Keep in mind, this was a discussion item during 2000 as well. Not that odd, considering we've encroached this territory only twice in modern history.
I'm wondering, were there any other times POTUS won the EC but lost the popular vote?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote
-
"Fair" is a tough thing. Is it fair, if you ask a conservative, that California has many more electoral votes than any other state? But anyway, I'm kinda' being nitpicky I admit. I just had an inkling to make it clear that people vote, not states.
So we're clear, though, I am not in favor of moving to a popular vote.
Nice table on the Wikipedia page on the EC shows the history of which states used legislative selection vs popular vote selection(s) and when they changed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors)
Looks like in 1816 that 9 of the 19 states listed the electors were selected by state legislators and not by all eligible voters.
-
I think we should all brush up on our Russian. Good idea.
Just out of curiosity, does it bother you that El Chapo "donated" $15 million dollars to the Clinton foundation? Does influencing elections come to your closed mind when you see that?
I bet not because it doesn't come from your controllers at the DNC.
-
Just out of curiosity, does it bother you that El Chapo "donated" $15 million dollars to the Clinton foundation? Does influencing elections come to your closed mind when you see that?
I bet not because it doesn't come from your controllers at the DNC.
Do you ever bother to verify the crap you spread or is your only filter whether of not it's critical of HRC?
-
Just out of curiosity, does it bother you that El Chapo "donated" $15 million dollars to the Clinton foundation?
A claim made by a site that came into existence only a few weeks ago.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/23/heres-a-dirty-laundry-list-of-the-clinton-foundations-most-questionable-foreign-donations/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
http://www.newsweek.com/why-clinton-foundation-donations-were-scandal-495008
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/23/heres-a-dirty-laundry-list-of-the-clinton-foundations-most-questionable-foreign-donations/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
http://www.newsweek.com/why-clinton-foundation-donations-were-scandal-495008
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html
Didn't see El Chapo mentioned in any of the linked articles. Didn't see any illegal contributions or did I miss some? Was there any pay to play? I don't know. Can you prove any? Anybody can "question" anything but can they prove anything? I can prove Trump's self-dealing--he admitted it. Did the Clinton's profit from contributions to their charitable foundation?
-
Didn't see El Chapo mentioned in any of the linked articles.
I didn't say or imply there was.
Didn't see any illegal contributions or did I miss some?
No one said or implied they were.
Was there any pay to play? I don't know. Can you prove any?
Who brought up pay to play? Oh, you did. Can you prove there wasn't any?
Anybody can "question" anything but can they prove anything?
If proof was offered you would just say it really didn't happen. Or blame the Russians.
Did the Clinton's profit from contributions to their charitable foundation?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/27/memo-shows-bill-clintons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hold-on-clintons-dont-benefit-from-foundation/
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/clinton-foundation-paid-for-chelseas-wedding/
But of course, please tell us it's all fake news by the Russians.
-
I think the Clinton Foundation, and its obvious corruption, and the Clintons' pay to play, even taking money from foreign adversaries, was one of the reasons Hillary lost the election.
Bill, and Hillary got what they wanted out of politics. They wanted to become mega rich, and they did by using their offices, and influence.
-
I think the Clinton Foundation, and its obvious corruption, and the Clintons' pay to play, even taking money from foreign adversaries, was one of the reasons Hillary lost the election.
Bill, and J
Yep, it's a bit hard to swallow when a candidate espouses her heart felt support of women's rights, gay rights and objection to racism while taking massive donations from countries who suppress women's rights, execute gays and openly discriminate racially.
-
Remember how Harry Reid told the country that Romney didn't pay any taxes yet never provided any proof. Didn't he brag about that this year when it was brought up.
-
Remember how Harry Reid told the country that Romney didn't pay any taxes yet never provided any proof. Didn't he brag about that this year when it was brought up.
Yep.
Harry Reid Relishes Romney Tax Lie: 'He Didn't Win, Did He?'
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Harry-Reid-Mitt-Romney-2012-election-taxes/2015/04/01/id/635842/
-
I think the Clinton Foundation, and its obvious corruption, and the Clintons' pay to play, even taking money from foreign adversaries, was one of the reasons Hillary lost the election.
Bill, and Hillary got what they wanted out of politics. They wanted to become mega rich, and they did by using their offices, and influence.
Your "obvious" corruption is anything but, concerning the Clinton Foundation. Charities take money from donors, it's how they get the money to do the work they do. Foundation namesakes who take money from charities and use it on themselves is called self-dealing and that's what Trump has admitted and been fined for. Clinton Foundation corruption is unproved and exists only in your estimation and not in any proven allegation.
-
Bill, and Hillary got what they wanted out of politics. They wanted to become mega rich, and they did by using their offices, and influence.
I think they sought wealth because that was their route to power. They wanted the power to control people and the country and shape it in their image of the ideal.
-
Your "obvious" corruption is anything but, concerning the Clinton Foundation. Charities take money from donors, it's how they get the money to do the work they do. Foundation namesakes who take money from charities and use it on themselves is called self-dealing and that's what Trump has admitted and been fined for. Clinton Foundation corruption is unproved and exists only in your estimation and not in
Even from the liberal/progressive, Jeff Besoz owned Washington Post.
The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
In a presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would be likely to showcase her foreign-policy expertise, yet the foundation’s ongoing reliance on foreign governments’ support opens a potential line of attack for Republicans eager to question her independence as secretary of state and as a possible president.
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?utm_term=.6ffbd3c5fdcf
-
If those Russians wouldn't have been donating to the Clinton Foundation in order to sway the election........
-
Even from the liberal/progressive, Jeff Besoz owned Washington Post. [snipperoo]
but the liberal media isn't a reliable source. So liberals can continue to live in their fantasy land where the clinton foundation is one of the finest charities in the world.
-
What you choose to ignore is the fact that the Clinton Foundation is not the Clinton pocketbook like the Trump Foundation was the Trump personal pocketbook. Foreign governments are not prohibited from donating to charity. Until you prove the Clinton Foundation funds were used by the Clintons in some way to personally benefit them, all you're doing is trying to smear them with unfounded allegations. We know Trump acted illegally using Trump Foundation funds to personal benefit. He admitted it and paid fines. We know he verbally took credit for donating fund to charities that were donated by others to his foundation because there's records of when and how much personal money he donated to his foundation.. We know he claimed to have donated to veterans money he hadn't until after reporters investigated the claim and proved he hadn't. I suspect Trump has bribed public officials but I can't say for sure because all I have to go on is Trump's own words and we know we can't believe what he says literally.
-
Trump made his money from private sector business transactions, and taking business risks. The Clintons made their money through government influence and selling that influence to the highest bidder, no matter who they were.
-
What you choose to ignore is the fact that the Clinton Foundation is not the Clinton pocketbook like the Trump Foundation was the Trump personal pocketbook. Foreign governments are not prohibited from donating to charity. Until you prove the Clinton Foundation funds were used by the Clintons in some way to personally benefit them, all you're doing is trying to smear them with unfounded allegations. We know Trump acted illegally using Trump Foundation funds to personal benefit. He admitted it and paid fines. We know he verbally took credit for donating fund to charities that were donated by others to his foundation because there's records of when and how much personal money he donated to his foundation.. We know he claimed to have donated to veterans money he hadn't until after reporters investigated the claim and proved he hadn't. I suspect Trump has bribed public officials but I can't say for sure because all I have to go on is Trump's own words and we know we can't believe what he says literally.
QED
-
Trump made his money from private sector business transactions, and taking business risks...
and bribing public officials, and self-dealing funds from the Trump Foundation, and declaring bankruptcy after bankruptcy letting the common man get stiffed for unpaid materials and services while sheltering millions for himself, and defrauding people enrolled in "Trump University" and who knows what else since he refuses to release tax returns like every other President in my lifetime.
I don't like the Clintons, never did. While on active duty I deplored having him as my Commander in Chief but I obeyed all orders from above as I had sworn to do and I kept my disgust to myself. This doesn't mean I have to sit still in retirement and accept unPresidential behavior now because Trump thinks any behavior is acceptable 'cuz he says so.
The Clintons made their money through government influence and selling that influence to the highest bidder, no matter who they were.
That would be illegal. Can you show me where they have been indicted for illegal influence peddling? Oh yeah, it's just your flapping gums and Donald's. Lock her up--let's get it done if she's guilty, she should be punished. Maybe the reason the Donald is not going after HRC is the lawyers saying there's no chance of winning a conviction 'cuz there's no evidence of illegal influence peddling. Donating money to a charity from which the Clinton's receive no money is not illegal. Try proving there was a quid pro quo. Taking her to court and losing would deprive the Trumpists of a rallying cry and counterpoint to any shenanagins Trump gets tainted with.
-
"Speaking Fees" were not paid to the foundation, they were paid to Bill & Hill individually. Can anyone seriously say their short speeches were worth $200k, $300k? Overpaying for something is a known method of money laundering.
-
"Speaking Fees" were not paid to the foundation, they were paid to Bill & Hill individually. Can anyone seriously say their short speeches were worth $200k, $300k? Overpaying for something is a known method of money laundering.
Goldman Sachs paid Hillary $650K for a speech. What did the Saudi's, and Chinese give the Clintons over the years?
-
"Speaking Fees" were not paid to the foundation, they were paid to Bill & Hill individually. Can anyone seriously say their short speeches were worth $200k, $300k? Overpaying for something is a known method of money laundering.
So lock her up if it's illegal. You're accusing the Clinton's of doing something illegal so they should be prosecuted. Why aren't they under indictment? I don't think a quarterback should command a salary a thousand times greater than a school teacher but so what. I agree that $200K for a speech is more than I would pay but so what. If you can show anyone got something for paying Hillary for a speech other than a headache listening to her, than prove it,
-
Goldman Sachs paid Hillary $650K for a speech. What did the Saudi's, and Chinese give the Clintons over the years?
Or million dollar "gifts" from Qatar.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-foundation-admits-it-didnt-notify-state-department-1-million-qatar-gift.html
-
So lock her up if it's illegal.
The investigation is still ongoing.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/11/07/fbi039s_investigation_of_clinton_foundation_continues_395231.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/clinton-foundation-probe-continues/article/2005261
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441675/clinton-foundation-fbi-investigation-loretta-lynch-obstruction
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/after-trumps-win-is-the-clinton-foundation-doomed/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/exclusive-fbi-new-york-field-office-told-to-continue-clinton-foundation-probe/
-
Goldman Sachs paid Hillary $650K for a speech. What did the Saudi's, and Chinese give the Clintons over the years?
What did they give the Clintons? Not the Clinton Foundation, but the Clintons themselves? Unless you can show the Clintons were taking money from their foundation for personal gain, any money given to the Clinton Foundation is off the table for showing influence peddling, There has to be a quid before you claim a resulting quo. We know Trump self-dealed with his foundation, not by inference but by admission. Unless you can show self-dealing by the Clintons through the Clinton Foundation, any Saudi or other contributions to it are gestures of good will to the charitable work it does. Prove otherwise and I'll join the chorus of lock them up.
-
The investigation is still ongoing...
Good. Get back to me if they find malfeasance but until then STFU about unproven allegations as if they were a given. According to Trump he's been under continuous audit from the IRS for years. Should we all assume he's been illegally dodging taxes because the IRS is "investigating"/auditing his tax returns. I infer nothing from an IRS audit of Trump but I can infer a lot by his refusal to release his tax returns unlike every other President in modern history.
-
Good. Get back to me if they find malfeasance but until then STFU about unproven allegations as if they were a given.
Wow, some cojones there to come on the forum and start telling members to shut the fuck up. Is that how you deal with people you disagree with?
No one here has told you to shut the fuck up even though you constantly spew unverifiable bullshit that's often no more than the liberal talking points of the day.
You've shown yourself to be little more than a troll. The above comment just confirms it.
-
"Speaking Fees" were not paid to the foundation, they were paid to Bill & Hill individually. Can anyone seriously say their short speeches were worth $200k, $300k? Overpaying for something is a known method of money laundering.
Goldman Sachs paid Hillary $650K for a speech. What did the Saudi's, and Chinese give the Clintons over the years?
So person A says he or she deserves a certain fee to provide a service (speaking in front of a group). Ok.
The entity requesting the service pays the fee to person A. Person A fulfills the contract by providing the service.
This is somehow malfeasance, because you don't like it or agree with it?
Conservative ideological hypocrisy defined.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/272396-the-clintons-and-the-sordid-ubs-affair
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-2015-07-30
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492
-
Good. Get back to me if they find malfeasance but until then STFU about unproven allegations as if they were a given. According to Trump he's been under continuous audit from the IRS for years. Should we all assume he's been illegally dodging taxes because the IRS is "investigating"/auditing his tax returns. I infer nothing from an IRS audit of Trump but I can infer a lot by his refusal to release his tax returns unlike every other President in modern history.
Besides being socio-pathically delusional about this topic, can you tell us why you never objected to Clinton winning more of the vote in the 2008 primaries than Obama?
Hypocrisy is so you, you know.
-
So person A says he or she deserves a certain fee to provide a service (speaking in front of a group). Ok.
The entity requesting the service pays the fee to person A. Person A fulfills the contract by providing the service.
This is somehow malfeasance, because you don't like it or agree with it?
Conservative ideological hypocrisy defined.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Then there is this scenario:
Person A says "if you pay me a million bucks to speak to your group, I'll make sure the United States Government gives you favorable treatment".
The group pays the million bucks to person A, and gets that favorable treatment.
No problem, right?
-
Besides being socio-pathically delusional about this topic, can you tell us why you never objected to Clinton winning more of the vote in the 2008 primaries than Obama?
Hypocrisy is so you, you know.
Maybe because I'm not a Democrat and don't really care about their rules for choosing a candidate.
I do care about Congressional and the Presidential positions that I do vote for and want my vote to count as much as your vote. Cue the rabid defense of the EC.
-
Cue the rabid defense of the EC.
The Electoral College is enshrined in our constitution. Shouldn't we as Americans defend it just like we defend the entire constitution?
-
Then there is this scenario:
Person A says "if you pay me a million bucks to speak to your group, I'll make sure the United States Government gives you favorable treatment".
The group pays the million bucks to person A, and gets that favorable treatment.
No problem, right?
Refresh my memory please. Was HRC still the SoS when she received money to speak at various corporate venues? Did she receive any funds from anyone while she was in government? When was the alleged favorable treatment received? To answer your question, if someone paid a politician in office a million bucks to speak and then received favorable treatment from that politician's office in the government, LOCK THEM UP. If someone, not in government, promises to get favorable government treatment to someone for cash, and the government acts favorablly towards the entity paying, you'd have to prove that the person receiving the money colluded with someone in government to act favorably for some sort of reward. Otherwise every lobbyist would be thrown in jail for getting the government to act favorably and the lobbyist getting paid to do it.
-
The Electoral College is enshrined in our constitution. Shouldn't we as Americans defend it just like we defend the entire constitution?
Right on cue! To answer your question, sure. That's why I concede that President Elect Trump won the election. Doesn't preclude me from thinking the Constitution should be changed.
-
Refresh my memory please. Was HRC still the SoS when she received money to speak at various corporate venues? Did she receive any funds from anyone while she was in government? When was the alleged favorable treatment received? To answer your question, if someone paid a politician in office a million bucks to speak and then received favorable treatment from that politician's office in the government, LOCK THEM UP. If someone, not in government, promises to get favorable government treatment to someone for cash, and the government acts favorablly towards the entity paying, you'd have to prove that the person receiving the money colluded with someone in government to act favorably for some sort of reward. Otherwise every lobbyist would be thrown in jail for getting the government to act favorably and the lobbyist getting paid to do it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Again and again you link the Clinton Foundation to the Clinton pocketbook. Asides from that, if a politician does something governmentally and somebody profits by that government action, you have to prove a quid pro quo before alleging criminal activity. HRC doing something as SoS and then after leaving office getting paid speaking fees long after the fact is a long way from proving she acted illegally. Do I suspect she's a crook? it doesn't matter. It matters if she violated the law and it can be proved. For a time politicians were enjoined not only to obey the law but to avoid any appearance of violating the law. That ship has sailed long ago.
-
Then there is this scenario:
Person A says "if you pay me a million bucks to speak to your group, I'll make sure the United States Government gives you favorable treatment".
The group pays the million bucks to person A, and gets that favorable treatment.
No problem, right?
If a prosecutor can prove such a scenario took place, then person A should face an indictment. Upon the presentation of evidence, Person A should face an appropriate verdict and the resulting sentence.
Innuendo is not a substitute for evidence.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Wow, some cojones there to come on the forum and start telling members to shut the fuck up. Is that how you deal with people you disagree with?
My My. I had no idea you were so thin skinned. My apologies.
No one here has told you to shut the fuck up even though you constantly spew unverifiable bullshit that's often no more than the liberal talking points of the day.
See my earlier comment.
You've shown yourself to be little more than a troll. The above comment just confirms it.
Just because I haven't drunk the Trump kool-aid, I'm a troll. I'm crushed. I may never post again. I've endured all manner of name calling by our resident troll Number7 and he never got any troll credit. I guess I'll just go back to digging my bomb shelter and laying in some supplies for the coming years of greatness,
-
My My. I had no idea you were so thin skinned. My apologies.
See my earlier comment.
It's not thin skinned. You cannot make a coherent argument so you resort to telling someone to shut the fuck up. Got news for you sparky, this is a forum for discussion, just because you can't make any sense with your inane arguments doesn't give you the right to try to shut people down from continuing the discussion.
Just because I haven't drunk the Trump kool-aid, I'm a troll. I'm crushed. I may never post again. I've endured all manner of name calling by our resident troll Number7 and he never got any troll credit. I guess I'll just go back to digging my bomb shelter and laying in some supplies for the coming years of greatness,
You're a troll because you keep acting like one. Here's a novel concept, try making an argument using facts instead of liberal talking points. You want to make wild claims, be prepared to back them up.
But when you start the "shut the fuck up" routine then you don't deserve the time of day or wasted bandwidth.
-
It's not thin skinned. You cannot make a coherent argument so you resort to telling someone to shut the fuck up. Got news for you sparky, this is a forum for discussion, just because you can't make any sense with your inane arguments doesn't give you the right to try to shut people down from continuing the discussion.
You're a troll because you keep acting like one. Here's a novel concept, try making an argument using facts instead of liberal talking points. You want to make wild claims, be prepared to back them up.
But when you start the "shut the fuck up" routine then you don't deserve the time of day or wasted bandwidth.
Awwww. Too bad so sad you recognize you have nothing intelligent to say so your only recourse is to call me a troll and declare victory. Congratulations on your success. All the best in your future endeavors. Keep on denying everything you don't like and if that doesn't work kill the messenger.