10-28-2016, 03:43 PM
(10-28-2016, 03:17 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(10-28-2016, 02:26 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yep, she's even done better with the money/business aspect of campaigning than the man running based largely on his self-proclaimed business/financial acumen.
Trump's candidacy failed to secure large contributions from the typical big money conservative donors, which was the result of his own words and actions (and not for lack of trying).
You will get no argument from me that the Clinton's made their fortune primarily from the largesse of others.
Sucking from the rich tit masquerading as public service.
God bless the wealthy!
I didn't make that claim for you to either argue or agree-with in the first place.
Anyway, I don't think people are bad, corrupt, or criminals simply because they're wealthy.
We were talking about campaign contributions, which haven't added to the personal wealth of either Clinton or Trump -- those contributions are regulated and strictly reported.
I would like to see money-influence diminished when it comes to elections, though, and I'm hopeful that Citizens United will be overturned at some point in the relatively near future. That would help.
Both Clinton and Trump have benefited from that ill-advised (in my opinion) Supreme Court decision during this election cycle. However, Clinton favors overturning Citizens United, whereas Trump supports the Supreme Court decision.