Donald Trump bragged Thursday night that he could buy politicians — even the ones sharing the stage with him at a Republican presidential debate.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”
“You’d better believe it,” Trump said. “If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I’ve given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.”
The only complaints came from two candidates who yelled that they had received no Trump money. As Trump continued to talk, he was interrupted by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., complaining that Trump instead gave campaign contributions to Rubio’s Democratic opponent.
“I hope you will give to me,” said Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.
“Sounds good. Sounds good to me, governor,” said Trump.
Without missing a beat, the real estate tycoon continued: “I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
Repeatedly asked what he got in return for his donations, Trump said: “With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good.”
Though it surely wasn’t his intention, Trump was illustrating the key problem with the current campaign finance system. Campaign contributions are legally considered bribes only when there is an explicit quid-pro-quo. But as Trump explained, giving money to politicians bought him access and relationships, which he could leverage down the road in the form of favors. Such conflicts of interest are inherent in privately funded election systems.
No one on stage disputed Trump’s depiction of the American political system. In fact, it was taken as a given.
Earlier in the debate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had stated that Trump “buys and sells politicians of all stripes.” He wasn’t so much complaining that big donors like Trump can buy and sell politicians as grumbling that Trump should only purchase Republicans. (Trump, indicating toward Paul, responded: “Well, I’ve given him plenty of money.”)
Trump has indeed made a considerable number of political donations, as recorded by OpenSecrets.org. But those records don’t show a contribution to Paul.
At another point, Trump said that the U.S. health care system is badly designed because “the insurance companies … have total control of the politicians” with which they’re “making a fortune.”
Other candidates also referenced the corrupting influence of money in politics. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee stated that “the problem is we have a Wall Street-to-Washington access of power that has controlled the political climate.” He continued: “The donor class feeds the political class who does the dance that the donor class wants. And the result is federal government keeps getting bigger.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said that there are many “career politicians in both parties who get in bed with the lobbyists and special interests.”
Last weekend, GOP contenders Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina attended a private meeting of elite campaign donors at a retreat in Southern California organized by Koch Industries chief executive Charles Koch. At the time Trump tweeted: “I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers. Puppets?”
Does anyone else pine for the days of a Frank Costello or a Lucky Luciano to show this bully who’s boss in business and politics? The guy ain’t got no CLASS!! All he’s done is bring the heat down on the family. There’s an app for that.
Now you know the absolute truth. Time to vote for the Green Party, the party of integrity that promotes the growth of green business while saving the environment.
Are you smart and concerned enough to vote Green Party. I doubt it. You are also puppets to the oligarchy.
Would someone send this to each of justices on the supreme court.
The naive explanation of the majority in the “Citizens United” case says that money doesn’t have an effect on politicians seems to be contradicted Trump’s statements.
But then the explanation was just a white wash so the Justices can realize their vision of America where those who own the country run the country
Well David Duke and Cynthia McKinney are right. Zionism rules DC.
If someone had made Trump’s comments even 10 years ago it would have been shocking. Today it is no big deal. We all know the system is corrupt and it’s just business as usual anymore.
Great article through and through. Thank you!
So Democracy is not possible when money buys Freedom and Rights for only the “privileged ” ones. The politicians act as our “Daddy” making sure to set all our “limits”…speech, jobs, money, access to land, credit, Rights, etc. They (the political Daddys we elect) make sure we are always told “No” on EVERYTHING that would let the general Public advance and progress.
The Rich are given a “free pass” on EVERYTHING that would or could ever limit their enjoyment of “Democracy” and their “Pursuit of Happiness”. Little things such as – Little or no taxes, little or no business regulations, no police harassment….no limits on anything they desire.
So, while we, the “average American” continue to hear the same lies/promises from each one of the Daddy/politicians spewing their boring, prepared dribble….Trump has made Public everything we have always known: “Politicians are whores. They care nothing about YOUR future; YOUR Family; YOUR Country. They only care about THEIR FUTURE IN POLITICS AND THEIR WEALTH….even if it costs YOU everything YOU have worked hard for!
They will pass laws that will turn you into a criminal; pass laws to protect the biggest thieves a.k.a. bankers; support endless wars using YOUR money and killing and maiming YOUR kids; they will send EVERY American job overseas; they will allow millions more illegal immigrants to take YOUR money and YOUR children’s Future, etc. Why? Because, you elected them!
Selecting between that “lesser-of-two-evils” is always how the final voting goes. You want to fix the Political System? Stop choosing your Destroyer! Break the election system completely by, NOT getting involved with it. Just DO NOTHING….so simple and easy to do. You are only going to vote to elect ANOTHER political whore that is working hard to cause your demise!
If you involve yourself, you are responsible for the finally outcome.
I refuse to vote so, I can complain about whatever happen because I had nothing to do with it! The fools that say, “Well if you want change, you should vote” ….are assuming that there would be at least ONE moral, patriotic politician that would follow the American Way and Constitution….Nope! THEY ARE ALL about the money and can be bought-off!
EACH and EVERY POLITICIAN is all about the money and if they are not, they don’t stay in politics very long!
So, your vote doesn’t and is designed not to change the “Status Quo” of the political system. This is what your vote does, it guarantees No Change, No Hope, No Way Out.
So go back to your beer and football and worrying about losing your job…..
I agree 1000%. I also quit voting after the 2000 Bush SCOTUS-POTUS magick.
There are a group of posters – possibly paid – whose pitch is “they’re all the same”, so don’t participate, don’t speak out, and don’t vote. It should be clear that not voting – even for the write-in candidate of your choice – support the Republiclone agenda which is almost entirely based on restricting the vote.
Don’t be deceived by this propaganda.
I like the title of this article. It seems as of late there are so many of these titles that seem like they belong in The Onion, and yet they are happening in real life. I think my 2nd favorite title from a The Intercept article was, “Nobel Peace Prize Winner President Obama Bombs 7th Country”. That one also seemed like it belonged in The Onion.
Did Donald Trump shoot himself in the foot by making the bleeding wherever comment? I don’t know. His defense that he was trying to come up with nose but couldn’t think of it seems weird, but then again, Rick Perry couldn’t remember the names of the 3 agencies he wanted to get rid of. Also, his other comments about Mexican rapists didn’t sink him so who knows if this will hurt him?
Sticks and stones. The women who were offended are all Hil-shills who would not have voted for Trump anyway. The men who professed to be offended are all toadies to the usual suspects and would not have voted for Trump anyway. In my own opinion, the vacuous Megyn Kelly is a paragon of an airheaded newsmedia personality merely propagating propaganda from the usual suspects.
It is almost painful that the level of cretinism and cynicism of this debate just manages to be accepted by most. On a regular basis, all of these sad candidates blatantly give out all the ammunition critics need to ridicule them.
No one should have to repeat and analyse this debate to show how corrupted, conniving and dishonest these people are.
On what basis do you make all of these negative claims? Would you care to enlighten us with some actual facts, or are you just limited to spewing invective?
Katrina was perfectly clear to me as she referenced both the article and the comments – all here and readable if you’d care to. This poster is guilty of his own claims: spew.
Huckabee is way off of the mark. With this dance going on between donors and the politicians our government becomes more, and more, and more capitalist! He is lying through his teeth or stupid! All capitalism is is a means to strip everyone else of the wealth and power and continue until the planet has been destroyed for human life! The Earth has CANCER and it is the human race!
What obtains today is not capitalism. It is fascistic oligarchical criminality which the fascistic oligarchical criminals call capitalism as a way to fool you. And in that they have succeeded.
BTW I want to hear what your solution is.
Every single one of our elected folks are bought and paid for before they ever do their first day on the job of representing the 1%! The 99% are not really a part of the equation anymore. Apoplectic capitalism! With this much wealth in their veins thay have had a stroke, and are acting like it!
Now that I agree with 1000%.
Theres still hope. look up Bernie Sanders
Donald is right. He is the only candidate that can’t be bought. He proved his point with his Hillary Clinton story. My vote is for the only candidate that can’t be bought. DONALD TRUMP!
The banksters thought they bought Trump a long time ago. But he just might turn out to be their Vlad Tepes. And in her own way, Madonna might just be a Vlad Tepes as well. She is on the inside, and she has got their number.
We have to have public financing of campaigns, private contributions of any amount illegal. There are more details to be provided, but that is an introduction to the restoration of our greatness.
Much as though I find him offensive, full of teenage angst and ‘touched’ by celebrity and that he would make a terrible President – like all Cult of Personality leaders around the world. But, he’s right about the Health Care system and that Government , policy and Law is up for sale to the highest bidder/donor both nationally and internationally.
But, I don’t think he cares whether he is elected or not, the Presidency certainly won’t add to the power he wields with his dollars. It would merely be another feather in his cap. A trophy for his shelf. A chance to ride in Airforce One – Woopee!
So, this throwing the cat among the pigeons, is it to feed his ego? Or is it just his idea of having a whole lot of his kind of fun at the expense of others, showing people that he is a law unto himself and will do whatever he pleases. And above all that no one can (or will dare to) touch him in a way that does his own kingdom any damage.
It’s fascinating if nothing else. Maybe that is what he is really after, the attention.
look up Bernie Sanders
Does it make sense, as Trump claims, to elect a president so wealthy that they can’t be corrupted by money? I decided to do a correlation test between the performance rankings of presidents by the Siena College Research Institute survey and compare these to the rankings by net worth.
I used the Siena College performance rankings since my own rankings, while undoubtedly superior, might lead to accusations of personal bias. The results show a stronger correlation of performance to net worth than I had expected. Four of the top six ranked presidents were also in the top six in net worth (Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Madison). For only 12 of the 43 presidents was the difference between their rankings on the two lists greater than 10. For only 6 was the difference greater than 20. Those six outliers consist of three presidents who ranked highly on performance, but had relatively low net worth: Lincoln, Wilson and Truman. And three presidents who ranked poorly, despite relatively high net worth: Hoover, Tyler and G.W.Bush.
For those who are statistically minded, if you eliminate those 6 cases, the R-squared coefficient of the linear fit between performance and net worth is 0.6251 – which is a fairly strong positive correlation.
Here is the full list of presidents, their performance ranking, net worth ranking and the difference between them. A positive difference indicates a higher performance than predicted purely by net worth. Hence Lincoln, while only ranking third in terms of performance, is sometimes considered the greatest president because he did so well in overcoming the handicap of his relatively low net worth.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1, 9, 8
Theodore Roosevelt: 2, 4, 2
Abraham Lincoln: 3, 37, 34
George Washington: 4, 2, -2
Thomas Jefferson: 5, 3, -2
James Madison: 6, 6, 0
James Monroe: 7, 12, 5
Woodrow Wilson: 8, 42, 34
Harry Truman: 9, 44, 35
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 10, 24, 14
John F. Kennedy: 11, 1, -10
James K. Polk: 12, 12, 0
Bill Clinton: 13, 10, -3
Andrew Jackson: 14, 5, -9
Barack Obama: 15, 22, 7
Lyndon B. Johnson: 16, 7, -9
John Adams: 17, 19, 2
Ronald Reagan: 18, 21, 3
John Quincy Adams: 19, 17, -2
Grover Cleveland: 20, 14, -6
William McKinley: 21, 34, 13
George H. W. Bush: 22, 16, -6
Martin Van Buren: 23, 13, -10
William Howard Taft: 24, 32, 8
Chester A. Arthur: 25, 41, 16
Ulysses S. Grant: 26, 39, 13
James A. Garfield: 27, 40, 13
Gerald Ford: 28, 25, -3
Calvin Coolidge: 29, 43, 14
Richard Nixon: 30, 20, -10
Rutherford B. Hayes: 31, 31, 0
Jimmy Carter: 32, 26, -6
Zachary Taylor: 33, 27, -6
Benjamin Harrison: 34, 29, -5
William Henry Harrison: 35, 28, -7
Herbert Hoover: 36, 8, -28
John Tyler: 37, 11, -26
Millard Fillmore: 38, 30, -8
George W. Bush: 39, 18, -21
Franklin Pierce: 40, 33, -7
Warren G. Harding: 41, 35, -6
James Buchanan: 42, 36, -6
Andrew Johnson: 43, 38, -5
(I ask that no one take this too seriously, as the only indisputable fact that can be gleaned from this list is that the US has had a lot of mediocre presidents).
My father, a conservative who generally hung around with other conservatives, had a wealthy friend ‘Bill’ who owned a car dealership. My father joked that “Bill is a democrat–for effect”.
So sorry to have to say this, but as you should know: correlation is not cause.
But it may suggest an hypothesis. A president requires cooperation from established institutions. A president who opposes those vested interests may be less effective at implementing an agenda – and hence less effective overall. A wealthier president might have a better relationship with more powerful constituencies (since the wealthiest segments of society are also the most powerful) and therefore can get things done.
The exceptions – Lincoln, Wilson and Truman – were all war time presidents. So they possibly benefitted from the mobilization of support in face of more pressing national concerns. The other three exceptions in the opposite direction – Bush, Hoover and Tyler – may simply have been incompetent.
So if a president’s performance is measured by how well he protects established interests, there might be a logical explanation for the observed correlation.
They pretend to dislike yet fully support the pay to play system that is American politics. And the American electorate, for the most part, buys right into it. It’s a thoroughly depressing spectacle.
No, Trump DID intend to show the corruption of the system. ..
Quote from Trump, in this article, regarding donations being a problem:
He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
Quote from this article, a few paragraphs later, seemingly forgetting that trump was saying it was a problem:
Though it surely wasn’t his intention, Trump was illustrating the key problem with the current campaign finance system.
Of course they agree with Trump, the other 9 ALL have a price and all 9 are hoping and praying the Kochs will buy them.
So big deal, money talks BS walks. Politicians have sold their souls for money since day 1. Remember everyone the coffin has no pockets !!!!
People like u r the problem too
But not anywhere near this extent, and not under the condition of a fully developed oligarchy and international monopoly. In this light, it is a VERY big deal.
Given that The Donald did a lot of business in New Jersey, this should concern Gov. Chris Christie.
And the winner of the GOP Presidential debate is: Bernie Sanders!
http://ow.ly/QDF49
You say “Though it surely wasn’t his intention, Trump was illustrating the key problem with the current campaign finance system.” — that was exactly his intention. After describing how it works, he even said, ” that’s a broken system”.
That was my take too.
Good for Trump.
Any normal moderators would have followed up on Trump’s assertion. ( E.g., Are you saying US politicians’ political positions and votes reflect the values of those giving them money? Who has accepted money from Koch industries? From AIPAC? Do these donations have anything to do with your positions on the Iranian treaty?)
But the Fox panelists had their own Republican agenda — to make these buffoons appear thoughtful and principled. (The question isn’t who will make a great President … the question is “who is the bestest for the Republican brand boys and girls?”)
But none of the rest of the media noticed this “the emperor wears no clothes” moment, although it should be the single headline to emerge from these stiffs’ inane blabbering.
Who will shed a tear for these spineless hirelings when they must deplore themselves to keep their pockets stuffed full of corporate cash?
They’re all illustrating Bernie Sanders message, perfectly. The Republicans candidates can’t help but confess. It’s eating them up inside. “Forgive us, American people, we have sinned.”
The lead inquisitors candidly discuss the corruption at the highest levels of “righteousness” yet avoid discussion about the effects of their elitist policies including the budding WWIII resulting from US proxy wars that was planned out by Neo cons in the “Project for a New American Century”.
“The world is big crime scene, nah mean…” ~ NAS & Damian “Nah Mean”
” In fact, they not only assume the risk of bankruptcy, but price it into the deal when they lend Donald Trump or anyone else money.”
I’d be curious how big of a premium would be added onto mortgages if bankruptcies were part of the business. I don’t think there’s many customers that would be too eager to ask for an extra percentage point to be added onto their mortgage rate in exchange for a bankruptcy option.
Some of the things Trump says are actually very refreshing and perceptive. If only he didn’t seem so dirty and egomaniacal he might be worth considering supporting. Too untrustworthy and unthoughtful is the problem with his image.
Too untrustworthy compared to whom?
I’m sorry, but this was nowhere near as creepy as watching these people call for “politically incorrect war” and (especially) for that creepy neurosurgeon to talk about how he’s not going to talk about what kind of torture he’s going to do to prisoners (but I bet it involves getting into their heads in a far more literal way).
“Though it surely wasn’t his intention, Trump was illustrating the key problem with the current campaign finance system.”
I am no great fan of Trump and also no fan of someone else interpreting another’s remarks, who the hell knows what the Donald real means?
I previously stated: Trump is the elephant in the room and a “rouge” that threatens a third party run. Who knows what he might actually propose or accomplish IF elected. He both frightens and fascinates and minimally establishes interest and pulls more people into politics by rocking the boat of the established elites who deserve a dunking. Trump is one of few candidates that for good or ill might upset (double-entendre) the established powers. My issues are to restore a Constitutional Republic by checking surveillance and plutocracy. For this I give him and other such “off key” candidates, right (Paul, Carson) and left (Warren, Sanders) at least an ear if not my support. The rule of law and some semblance of equity and sanity in policy “trumps” ideologies that both serve the same masters. The down side for any outsider to be elected major financial, terrorists act, police state or other revelation or an epic scandal will have to hit the fan and splatter those with the gold that make the rules.
Trump would make a good President.
And frankly, compared to the current one, it is very probable that even an inanimate object would perform better.
It’s really cute how you think your opinion is even remotely valuable.
There is an obvious solution to this issue, and that is that billionaires get off their lazy behinds and enter politics themselves. Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos campaigning to unseat President Trump in 2020, now that would be a spectacle worth watching.
For sadomasochists perhaps.
Marc Andreessen would be a better fit for your ideology.
The more the merrier, to be honest.
You don’t say, Louise. I couldn’t have guessed your political position on this.
In other words, billionaires don’t quite have everything yet. They should get the presidency too.
It’s interesting; The Donald could merely buy and sell us. Bezos and Zuckerberg already know more about us personally than anybody outside NSA or the three credit bureaux, so they could bring their own surveillance to the job.
Good thinking. That’s at least half the deficit dealt with right there.