Contrast In the Political World

[I Am Hugh]

Here are two videos demonstrating the possible contrast in our political world. The first is a common example, the second extremely rare.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is it that you wish to debate?

 

[Stevicus]

Here are two videos demonstrating the possible contrast in our political world. The first is a common example, the second extremely rare.

I commented in another thread that it seemed strange to me that Trump would have run for President at all. And he was the only President on the video who lost money while in office. The video says he lost over $1 billion. He's worse off for becoming President than he would have been if he had just sat back and relaxed.

But yes, it is interesting how most Presidents end up with a significantly larger net worth.

However, there have been some Presidents who went broke or nearly broke.

America's 8 Presidents Who Went Broke

To be elected president, candidates must be able to convince the American people they can make life better for them. Yet, despite being successful in their presidential bids, some presidents are not as successful in their other endeavors — namely business and finance. In fact, several American...

247wallst.com

Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, and even Lincoln are on the list of Presidents who went broke. Even George Washington had to borrow money in order to travel to his own inauguration.

As for the President of Uruguay in the second video, he appears to be a generous, honest, and decent man. Too bad we don't find more such people in politics.

 

[Estro Felino]

I feel like vomiting...whenever I think that what drives most politicians is greed.

The real idealists are forbidden from entering politics because they don't belong in the sewer of barrators.

 

[I Am Hugh]

But yes, it is interesting how most Presidents end up with a significantly larger net worth.

Significantly larger than their salary will realistically allow, even if they were savvy investors like Warren Buffet while senators have abnormal positive returns of 25%. According to the study done in the 1990s shown in the video below, Buffet's investment return in the 90s was 2.5% while the average person's was -1.5% and the investment returns for senators was 12%.

 

[Kathryn]

Significantly larger than their salary will realistically allow, even if they were savvy investors like Warren Buffet while senators have abnormal positive returns of 25%. According to the study done in the 1990s shown in the video below, Buffet's investment return in the 90s was 2.5% while the average person's was -1.5% and the investment returns for senators was 12%.

Honestly, I think it even is at the local level sometimes.

 

[Stevicus]

I feel like vomiting...whenever I think that what drives most politicians is greed.

The real idealists are forbidden from entering politics because they don't belong in the sewer of barrators.

It's hard to say. There may be those who might go in for the right reasons, particularly when they're young and idealistic and want to change the world.

 

[Father Heathen]

I feel like vomiting...whenever I think that what drives most politicians is greed.

Yet you tend to favor the greediest ones; the ones who seek to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

 

[I Am Hugh]

It's hard to say. There may be those who might go in for the right reasons, particularly when they're young and idealistic and want to change the world.

While I think that is certainly possible and I would like to think so, I wonder if the system will allow their noticeable progress within it. Lately I've been thinking that on a national level, in the West, especially in the US, our options are either inherent in the system or, if there is some specific agenda, provided by the "elite" themselves.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yet you tend to favor the greediest ones; the ones who seek to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

You didn't watch the video.
If you had, you would have seen that Clinton gained hundred of millions of dollars .
Trump lost billions.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Yet you tend to favor the greediest ones; the ones who seek to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

What other options are there? Obviously, that is the objective of all. Deceive, distract and give promises you know you won't keep to the public, asking for their vote, for what it's worth, and then reap the rewards not only through insider trading but other shady deals. The financial incentive isn't derived from the poor and downtrodden, I assure you.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's hard to say. There may be those who might go in for the right reasons, particularly when they're young and idealistic and want to change the world.

But we are discussing how politics made them millionaires.

 

[Father Heathen]

You didn't watch the video.
If you had, you would have seen that Clinton gained hundred of millions of dollars .
Trump lost billions.

Trump's incompetence doesn't absolve him of his intent.

 

[Father Heathen]

What other options are there? Obviously, that is the objective of all. Deceive, distract and give promises you know you won't keep to the public, asking for their vote, for what it's worth, and then reap the rewards not only through insider trading but other shady deals. The financial incentive isn't derived from the poor and downtrodden, I assure you.

It comes down to choosing the "lesser evil".

 

[Estro Felino]

Trump's incompetence doesn't absolve him of his intent.

Yeah...Clinton has been the cunningest.
He surely love $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Father Heathen]

Yeah...Clinton has been the cunningest.
He surely love $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Okay, then I'll make sure to never vote for him, and if he's guilty of any crimes, then he can share a cell with Trump.

 

[Stevicus]

While I think that is certainly possible and I would like to think so, I wonder if the system will allow their noticeable progress within it. Lately I've been thinking that on a national level, in the West, especially in the US, our options are either inherent in the system or, if there is some specific agenda, provided by the "elite" themselves.

One of my favorite movies as a kid was Jimmy Stewart's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." It's kind of like a political version of "It's a Wonderful Life." At one point in the movie, a young senator is faced with a choice of "playing ball" with the bigshots - or going against them and suffering the consequences. The political machine did a real hatchet job on him, showing how such a thing is possible (although the movie still had a happy ending).

• Senator Joseph Paine : I know how you feel, Jeff. Thirty years ago - I had those ideals, too. I was *you*. I had to make the decision you were asked to make today. And I compromised - yes! So that all these years I could stay in that Senate - and serve the people in a thousand honest ways! You've got to face facts, Jeff. I've served our state well, haven't I? We have the lowest unemployment and the highest federal grants. But, well, I've had to compromise, had to play ball. You can't count on people voting, half the time they don't vote, anyway. That's how states and empires have been built since time began. Don't you understand? Well, Jeff, you can take my word for it, that's how things are. Now I've told you all this because - well, I've grown very fond of you - about like a son - in fact, and I don't want to see you get hurt. Now, when that deficiency bill comes up in the Senate tomorrow, you stay away from it. Don't say a word. Great powers are behind it, and they'll destroy you before you can even get started. For your own sake, Jeff, and for the sake of my friendship with your father, please, don't say a word.

That points up a major of the problem bolded above. A lot of people simply don't vote. And even those who do vote seem easily led, focusing on the image and their perceptions of politics and political candidates. The role of the Fourth Estate becomes paramount in that.

I think the political system has had trouble adjusting to newer technologies and methods of mass communication which didn't really exist in previous decades. It used to be that people would get their news and information from print or broadcast sources, oftentimes locally owned but affiliated with the major networks. Choices were somewhat limited. But even then, TV was a powerful medium for convincing and persuading people.

But the technology of the internet has brought things to a whole different level, and I can sense a certain degree of frustration from those who had grown accustomed to how things were done back in the old days. With all the junk floating around out there, fake news, toxic propaganda, and other unsavory elements, more and more people seem to be losing their marbles.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Here are two videos demonstrating the possible contrast in our political world. The first is a common example, the second extremely rare.

Oy vei! Right-wingers are SOooo easily duped.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-trump-wealth/index.html

The numbers cited in the first OP video also account for the economy.
....
COVID anyone?


And that doesn't even begin to address the ways that the Insurrectionist plays "loose" with his wealth estimates. Y'all do recall that tRump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying his accounting in the last few months. Right?
Of course it was made easier to fit together when the Insurrectionist revealed his tax returns. ..... Oh! Right!
Or how he followed the US Constitution and divested himself from all prior investments/properties to avoid conflicts of interest, wherein his influence as POTUS might profit him or his family (i.e. the Emoluments clause). ..... Oh! Right!
But at least tRump's son didn't profit $2 Billion during the Insurrectionist's time as POTUS. (Darn that son of Biden!) ..... Whoops!

 

[I Am Hugh]

What is it that you wish to debate?

[Sigh] Hell hath no furry . . .

Since you've asked, I would like to debate whether or not a proposed negative generalization of human behavior is confirmed by that same behavior as demonstrated bt the one with the counter argument even - and I want to make this absolutely clear - even if it hurts their feelings or is contrary in some way to their idealistic tyrannical projections.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[Sigh] Hell hath no furry . . .

Huh? (You could have at least quoted the line accurately.)

Since you've asked, I would like to debate whether or not a proposed negative generalization of human behavior is confirmed by that same behavior as demonstrated bt the one with the counter argument even - and I want to make this absolutely clear - even if it hurts their feelings or is contrary in some way to their idealistic tyrannical projections.

Thanks for the clarification.