Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[Dill]

(11-20-2016, 12:47 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Without intending to preach the moral high ground, my first reaction has to do with ethics, or the lack thereof. You are hearkening  back to a day when eliminating any conflict of interest was a premium requirement for public officials. Ethics have been challenged for God knows how long, but seemingly no more so than the past few decades. Now that we have around 60 million voters showing the rest of the world that proper ethics have no place in the Oval Office, what we see is going to be the norm for a lot longer than most can imagine. Politicians do not give ethics top priority anymore. Neither do some voters.

Well, quite a few voters were incensed by the ethical questions swirling around Hillary. Many claimed her perceived dishonesty as the number one reason they would not vote for her. They rated Trump's honesty very highly.

So I would say that many politicians and voters do give ethics top priority. They are still a premium requirement for the other party's candidates.

But on this forum I won't be surprised if some who disparaged "crooked Hillary" now wonder what all the fuss is about if Trump uses the presidency to leverage building permits from foreign governments or to prevent unsightly wind towers from damaging the view at a luxury golf course.  What's the big deal if Chinese banks hold mortgages on his properties while he is negotiating trade deals with them?  Mightn't his 650 million in debts affect his domestic and foreign policy?  Doubtful, once he has turned his business over to his kids.  After that, how could he really know what is happening with those businesses any more?  And he won't be directing them. His kids will. So how could they profit from insider information once he has separated himself from his "international business empire"?

Still, the liberal media are so angry that he won; I am betting they continue to carp about conflicts of interest.