Presidential Conflicts of Interest

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-23-2016, 07:23 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 

I wouldn't argue a single bit of this, Dill. In fact the only thing I'd change in what I wrote previously would be the referenced 60 million to 62 million, had Clinton won. The BS her posse pulled on Sanders during the primaries disgusted me as much as anything. It applies to the entire circus from my view. Old fashioned ethics lost its seat at the table, regardless of who is throwing the party.