Elerond

That is interesting question. Hillary resigned from her position on the foundation in 2015, but Bill and Chelsea still are board members in the foundation. Also I would like to know if foundation's non-profit corporation status factors in somehow. But as Bill was actually only able to found the foundation after his presidency ended I would guess that it could have caused problems for Hillary if she had won.

Recount is systematic tool that is based on state laws that say who, when and how one can ask for recount. Recounted should always be exactly same as original count and if that is not case there is bigger problems than who won the election. Recount systems are in place to prevent human error. Recount isn't good tool to look for foul play, even though in cases like current accusation of hacking of results of electric voting as there are fail safe systems like physical prints of the votes that give ability to count votes manually. But change that recount will ever give result that differ more than few hundred votes from original count are very low. But recount systems exist to ensure that election officials do their job with care. Trump winning or losing don't really matter me personally, because I don't live in USA and I am not citizen of USA so his presidency has little impact to me. I don't agree with him on his social policy issues or economical policies, but those effect mainly only people that live in USA. Things that effect on me are his foreign policy issues, which are actually such that they are beneficial for political party that I support here in Finland. Even though I have relatives in USA, they are economical refugees or descendants of such and additionally they live in Washington state and in my understanding they voted for Gary Johnson, so their candidate isn't in competition of winning anyway. So in short I don't come up reasons in first place why these elections were unfairly. I just take my fun out from pointing out things that happen to people that have previously said opposite things about similar happenings in other elections or in other context and see how they react on the news. In other words I continue to have conversation about things that I find interesting in intellectual level and try to find how different emotional approach to subject effects other people taking part in that conversation. Meaning that my jabs in this thread aren't aimed towards Trump or his win like you interpret it put towards other people on this forum, because that is where I get my fun. And then to other subject that I already mentioned earlier but now from different perspective https://thinkprogress.org/electoral-college-trump-top-lawyers-8a8b6e0ca916#.ftt01jq9u Following is quote from the article behind the above link Electoral College must reject Trump unless he sells his business, top lawyers for Bush and Obama say Ethics lawyers for the last two presidents are in agreement. Members of the Electoral College should not make Donald Trump the next president unless he sells his companies and puts the proceeds in a blind trust, according to the top ethics lawyers for the last two presidents. Richard Painter, Chief Ethics Counsel for George W. Bush, and Norman Eisen, Chief Ethics Counsel for Barack Obama, believe that if Trump continues to retain ownership over his sprawling business interests by the time the electors meet on December 19, they should reject Trump. In an email to ThinkProgress, Eisen explained that “the founders did not want any foreign payments to the president. Period.” This principle is enshrined in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars office holders from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” This provision was specifically created to prevent the President, most of all, from being corrupted by foreign influences. Virginia Governor Edmund Jennings Randolph addressed the issue directly during a Constitutional debate in June 1788, noting that a violation of the provision by the President would be grounds for impeachment. (Randolph was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.) There is another provision against the danger mentioned by the honorable member, of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered he may be impeached. If he be not impeached he may be displaced at the end of the four years. By the ninth section, of the first article, “No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people” … I consider, therefore, that he is restrained from receiving any present or emoluments whatever. It is impossible to guard better against corruption.” Eisen said that Trump’s businesses, foreign and domestic, “are receiving a stream of such payments.” A prime example is Trump’s new hotel in Washington DC which, according to Eisen, is “actively seeking emoluments to Trump: payments from foreign governments for use of the hotel.” “The notion that his (through his agents) solicitation of those payments, and the foreign governments making of those payments, is unrelated to his office is laughable,” Eisen added. This problem will be repeated “over and over” again with Trump’s other properties and business interests. The only way to cure this Constitutional violation is for Trump to sell his companies and set up a blind trust before he takes office. Electors should insist that Trump set up a blind trust as a condition of their vote, Eisen said. Another option, however unlikely, is for “Republicans in Congress [to] admit that they endorse Trump’s exploitation of public office for private gain and authorize his emoluments as the Constitution allows.” Eisen’s conclusions are shared by Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholars. Tribe told ThinkProgress that, after extensive research, he concluded that “Trump’s ongoing business dealings around the world would make him the recipient of constitutionally prohibited ‘Emoluments’ from ‘any King, Prince, or foreign State’ — in the original sense of payments and not necessarily presents or gifts — from the very moment he takes the oath.” The only solution would be to divest completely from his businesses. Failing that, Tribe elaborated on the consequences: Trump would be knowingly breaking his oath of exclusive fealty (under Art. II, Sec.1) to a Constitution whose very first Article (Art. I, Sec. 9) — an Article deliberately designed to prevent any U.S. official,especially the Chief Executive, from being indebted to, or otherwise the recipient of financial remuneration from, any foreign power or entity answerable to such a power — he would be violating as he repeated the words recited by the Chief Justice. Tribe said the violation would qualify as one of the “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that would require Trump to be “removed from Office.” This is where the Electoral College comes in. Tribe notes that the Electoral College was “originally conceived by Framers like Alexander Hamilton as a vital safeguard against the assumption of the Presidency by an ‘unfit character’ or one incapable of serving faithfully to ‘execute the Office of President of the United States [and] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” “[T]o vote for Trump in the absence of such complete divestment… would represent an abdication of the solemn duties of the 538 Electors,” Tribe said. This view is not a position of disgruntled liberals. Richard Painter, Bush’s Chief Ethics Counsel, was in complete agreement with Tribe and Eisen during a recent appearance on CNN. “I don’t think the electoral college can vote for someone to become president if he’s going to be in violation of the Constitution on day one and hasn’t assured us he’s not in violation,” Painter said. Painter also suggested a cure for the constitutional problem short of total divestment. Trump could agree to have his businesses audited and any payment from a foreign government be turned over to the United States. (Tribe does not think this would actually cure the Constitutional violation.) Thus far, Trump has not shown a willingness to do anything. Trump told the New York Times that he is under no obligation to set up a trust and he “could run my business perfectly, and then run the country perfectly.” Instead, he plans on having his adult children run the company while he retains ownership. Trump told a room full of reporters that “the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Painter told CNN that his attempts to warn the Trump transition of the legal consequences of their approach, including emails to adviser Kellyanne Conway, are being ignored. Meanwhile, Trump has already sought to leverage the office of the presidency to pressure foreign governments to take actions that would improve his bottom line. Trump admitted that he asked a group of British politicians to kill a proposed wind farm he believed would mar the views at a golf course he owns in Scotland. He reportedly asked the president of Argentina to approve permits for a high-rise in Buenos Aires. (Trump denied the allegation, although his local partner announced the project was moving forward the next day.) Trump has also had his daughter Ivanka, who is supposedly managing his day-to-day business interests, sit in on meetings with heads of state. Eisen views the current situation as dire. If Trump is permitted to be sworn in as president without selling his companies, he says, the country is facing a “wholesale oligarchic kleptocracy of a kind that we have never seen before in our history.”

There was also play piece states in Europe during cold war that successfully kept their indecency and do much better economically. And some of them even have free education and free healthcare systems that are accounted to being some of the best in the world. Those states also had strong willed governance but they succeed not making enemies from either USA or USSR. But of course it is hard to say if what they did was similar, better or lesser demonstration of political independence and sheer willpower, but at end they left their countries in better economical and political positions in the world, which of course don't mean that they necessary did better job.

I mean, we tend to view others through the lens of our existences and we apply our arbitrary standards. Maybe the general Cuban population is happy with their lives? I never hear of any rabble rousing down there. No "cracking down" by the government or stuff like that. They are never going to be a world player, or a powerhouse economy. Maybe things are fine as far as they are concerned? Situation for normal citizens in Cuba was so good that it didn't drive hundreds of thousands people risk their lives on desperate attempts to cross the sea and seek better lives elsewhere (read USA)

I would point out that ability to ask recount of vote is part of same system that made it possible to Trump to win in first place. Recount should be waste of time and money as it should give same result as original count. Speculations that it would not are reason why recount system exist in first place. It is there to ensure people that their will has been listened.

When Trump doubts the results, it's a threat to our democracy. When libs and independants do it, it's perfectly ok. I am so over the media shilling for the left. Trump didn't doubt results, he said that he don't accept any other result than his victory, before election. And isn't Jill green, making her something else than liberal (in US political sense, as she don't support all the same things as those that are counted as liberals) or independent (as she is member of a party)? I would point out that telegraph is conservative and pro establishment (which is currently controlled by conservatives) magazine in UK. But anyway at least they are willing to pay recount themselves, and recount should remove at least some distrust towards voting system and it will not change results if there hasn't been foul play. Meaning that where Trump, GOP and Democrats seem to be willing to question integrity of voting system, Jill & co are willing to but their money to check if people should actually be worried. Which in my opinion is much more admirable thing to do than what we have seen from those other doubters.

Geez, I wonder if you right....that could be true. It would be a huge upset and very applicable Real spoiler is that

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/us-election-jill-stein-challenge-results-swing-states-ofwisconsin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter US election: Jill Stein to challenge results in swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania amid claims of cyber attacks I must admit that this years elections have been very entertaining train wrecks to watch, even though they diminish my hope towards democratic governance.

I brought it up because it has been mentioned earlier conversations here as example of governmental corruption and as such I compared it to possibilities of governmental corruption that rise from Trump's company's hotels and diplomats telling that they will give Trump money through those hotels in order to get in favorable decisions from him.

I am not sure that is true. Lets take for example Finland's diplomatic envoy, every time we sent one to negotiate with new US president. At first it may not look that much as we sent only our president, prime minister, or foreign minister to do the official talk with the US president. But soon one realizes that such diplomatic envoy has actually lots of other people, as there will be assistants, interpreters and body guards for the our country's delegate. And then addition to these there will be several (dozen or so) bureaucrats that will negotiate with us bureaucrats and these bureaucrats will also have assistants. And then this opportunity is also used by some Finnish companies, that want to do business with US government or ensure that business will continue as it is now, who will sent their delegates to negotiate deals to them. And end result you will have envoy that consist of hundred to two hundred people, whom most of will stay in US for week or two. These people will, lets say downplayed estimate, pay 500 dollars per night per person for hotels they stay in, plus additional room services and conference rooms etc.. Which would make about 50k to 200k per day they are there . Totalling to somewhere from 350k to 3 million dollars (three million is more typical than 350k for such trip) for Finnish tax payers. Which is of course usually justifiable because they usually make several billions worth of deals during such trip.

I think you mix me to BruceVC, if you think that I am Clinton supporter.

The difference is in the transparency. -cut to save space- Yeah less, as private businesses need to keep much less public record who has paid them and how much than charitable organizations. But if one don't see any problems in this kind arrangement, I would call them bit naive if I didn't think that it is just because people aren't really worried as much about governmental corruption as one could think based on what topics were talked before election. As side note there isn't actually holding evidence that Clinton gave preferential treatment for those who gave money for Clinton foundation. When it comes to plain corruption there is actually more holding evidence against Trump, with him settling those law suits against Trump university, but of course as he settled those suits it means that we don't really know for sure even in his case.

You realize that if diplomats, corporate lobbyists, etc people start to stay in Trump hotel in order to make favors with president we are speaking hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars going in Trump's pockets in next four years? Because there is lot of those people and they will spent lots of money in those hotels especially if they try to make "nice gesture" towards president of USA. It sounds very much same as doing business in Russia, where people in control are much richer than Trump because of such "nice gestures" etc. things that give companies, diplomats, etc. ability to do anything in Russia.

Yes? Sounds reasonable and there is no impropriety that I can see. It's smart for foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump hotel and I seriously doubt there's quid pro quo related to people staying there. If the left uses this as a way to impugn Trump, a man whose own words suffice for that purpose, it'll end up as a losing ploy. However, it is an interesting aside. “'Believe me, all the delegations will go there,' said one Middle Eastern diplomat who recently toured the hotel and booked an overseas visitor. The diplomat said many stayed away from the hotel before the election for fear of a 'Clinton backlash,' but that now it’s the place to be seen." When foreign diplomats and companies give money to The Clinton Foundation it seem to be source of controversy and clear indication that Clinton is corrupt and those moneys were given only to get favors from Clinton. So if giving money to charitable non-profit organization that carry a politician's name puts people's motives under question then one could think that giving money for-profit company owned by a politician would also rise some flags. But it seems that isn't the case then...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

well, trump is wrong 'bout one thing: the theatre has never been a safe place for those in power. perhaps rosenberg would be better to be speaking 'bout the theatre? *shrug* the theatre has frequent needed be subtle. the theatre has sometimes been subversive. the theatre, sadly, has been a tool of the State or wealthy patrons more often than not, but there is no question the theatre has also been brave, rude, crude, terrible and beautiful. we would weep if we genuine believed there were even a possibility the theatre would need become a safe place for those in power and am glad we live in an age and in a nation where performers can be so open and forthright. if the cast of hamilton offended beyond the pale, then people will stop going to see the show and their message will die. they took a risk. personally, am not believing pence deserved the treatment he received, but am indescribably proud o' an America where nobody is safe from ridicule in the theatre. not tyrants. not businessmen. not journalists. not saints. some will see what happened as evidence o' divisiveness. it is. is also proof o' freedom. thank God. thank America. ... btw, the writers o' hamilton need a history lesson. got the hero and villain largely reversed. HA! Good Fun! I have to say I have never heard the cast of a US theater making such a political statement so openly to a politician ? Has this happened before? For example Finland's independence movement started from theaters in 1800s. If you go to beginning of theater as we now it in ancient Greek you find that lots of their plays had political message and were aimed towards those in power. Also there are lots of examples from the history where theater crews have imprisoned or even killed because they offended those in power.

Image searching for "liberal cuck" returned this: I figure that explains previous comments much better than an in-depth discussion of his politics ever would. edit: I didn't even enter his name I think whoever made that picture mistook Trudeau to Jesus

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947 Trump wants safe spaces and trigger warnings

I fervently hope the right in Europe steamrolls over the sycophants that have no respect for their individual culture. Each country there is a treasure, not something to be sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism. The right you are speaking about don't respect countries individual cultures either. They seem to be more into inventing new cultures that don't seem to be based on any existing culture. In other words they want to destroy European cultural heritage even more than biggest supporters of multiculturalism, just so that they can get in power.

Woman with plastic fork chased sword-wielding robber Fork is mightier than sword

I am too tired to have this argument ....you win for now But why would you think the EU collapsing is a good thing...can you name just 2 things? It will add Russia's, China's, Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, India's political, military and economical power. It will European's poorer. It will decrease USA's political and military power. So if one supports these things, then EU collapsing can be seen as good thing. But I don't see why France would want to leave EU as all the countries they don't like in the union seem to select governments that are against EU and are on path to leave the union. And Facebook should ban all fake news regardless of the source, so that journalists would again be forced to be journalists and write real news.

No many political commentators have admitted they were wrong and want to do a better job around these types of events in the future ....the media is self-regulating volo, no need to worry Good one Bruce. Obola could do no wrong, and Trump can do no right. So you two can continue your old debate, this time just on different sides. :D

That picture seems to be more against Trump than in support of him. As one of the reasons why people say they supported Trump was that he is against political correctness and this picture implies that first three members in his administration have been selected because of political correctness and not because of said people's abilities.

What I see, people are demanding that democrats will obstruct Trump with every conceivable way like republicans did for Obama (according to them). Any sort cooperation or suggestion of cooperation is seen as betrayal. So next four years are probably at least as entertaining as previous eight.

This is said to be legitimate, but I don't know for sure, but it is bit funny regardless