President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

I think that a combination of Sanders' supporters' discord and Hilary's email issues will cause a lot of mayhem. I won't be surprised to see a lot of talk encouraging her to remove herself from consideration and give Biden a chance to unify the party.

It's just not going to happen that way, at all.

As far as Republicans, it is common tactic in politics (and college football coaching searches) to announce that you are removing yourself from consideration. Usually, that is when you know that aren't being considered and done so that it looks like you turned them down, instead of the other way around.

I don't think so. I think most sane politicians want to stay as far away from crazy Trump as possible. Getting too close to him could ruin a career.

I agree that a lot of Republicans will sit this out. Many did with Romney in 2012 as well. Anything short of supporting the nominee is support of Hilary.

At this point, I think a lot of Republicans would rather give the election to Clinton than have Trump represent the Republican part as President.

The Republicans who don't like Trump wouldn't support a 3rd party candidate who could actually win.

I disagree. If a prominent Republican, like Paul Ryan, would have stepped away from the party and ran as an independent, IMO, a lot of Republican would have voted for the real thing rather then the very definition of a RINO of Donald Tump.

Which leaves Trump v. Hilary. If you are a Bernie supporter and sit it out, you risk handing it to Trump. If you are a nevertrump person and sit it out, you risk Hilary. Either way, a poor choice IMO. The pitfalls of a two party system controlled by special interests on both sides.

IMO, a lot more Democrats will stick with Clinton than Republicans who stick with Trump.....because Trump can't talk about anything without it coming out as crazy talk. Wait for the debates...Trump has not been paired one on one with anybody really...he thrives by the distraction of his dysfunctional outbursts. If the moderators do their job and try to pin him down to any specifics, he will fall on his face. I expect there to be a point in the debates where he falters so bad with his complete ignorance and incompetence will expose him for how unqualified and unprepared he really is for the office...and that will be the end of Trump.

[Monker]

Not defending Monker, he is plenty capable of doing that himself, but I understand that when you believe in someone you want to believe what they say. Hilary has a long history of being harrassed by Republicans, so if you don't like Republicans it is conceivable that you would believe Hilary. I think that all of us, want to believe that the people we support are worthy of that.

That is not really where I am at. I am simply saying that she is going to win. I don't think any of this Email crap is going to matter, at all.

[tj]

I agree that a lot of Republicans will sit this out. Many did with Romney in 2012 as well.

Yes, but Trump is bringing in Reagan Democrats and other voters that have not voted GOP in a long time (if ever). Romney did not expand the base or energize it.

According to Politico, this is a myth that Trump is spreading with absolutely no real data to back him up.

Politico took the actual data from the primaries and caucuses and found the reason for such high turn-out was REPUBLICANS who normally do not vote in the primaries voted this time. Yes, there are some Independents and Democrats...but the number is no where near what Trump and people like you believe, and it won't help him much in November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ata-213897

Politico isn't going to do Trump any favors. Regardless, I just read something last night that stated the data show otherwise. I will see if I can find it.

[tj]

Behold GOP policies in action!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ansas.html

What collapsed in both of those states and Oklahoma was the oil and gas industry. When the tax cuts were enacted, oil was $100+ per barrel range. A neighbor of mine was pumping oil from a well that was originally drilled almost 100 years ago, but had been dormant for years because the cost to get it out of the ground was too high. With new technology and a high per barrel revenue, the cost of getting the crude out of the ground made it economical again. When the price dropped, it cost more to get it out of the ground than it could be sold for, so many of the wells are dormant again. None of which are creating revenue to tax. If crude were at the $100+ per barrel price, the tax revenues would be full.

That doesn't excuse Brownback, Fallin, Jindahl, et. al., for the not better dealing with the issues facing their states, any more than it does Obama (and every other President at least back through Johnson) and Congress for running deficits that are a bigger national security risk than anything ISIS can bring. Rumsfeld, like him or hate him, once said that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Same thing with running a state, country or company. You work with what you have, not what you wish you had.

The idea that supply side economics and the use of tax cuts to create jobs is one that had been around for decades. In theory, it works. People have more capital to spend creating jobs instead of paying taxes. You can argue that paying the taxes gives more money to the government to spend, so in either case there are jobs created. On that argument, it comes down to what the role of government is, IMO.

The reality of supply side is that in a global economy, no state (and the US as a country) can't lower tax rates enough to compensate for the lower wages offered overseas. States compete against each other for the same few jobs that are left, while any company that expects to stay in business for 5 more years is looking at how to outsource production and service overseas in order to stay profitable at a level that Wall Street will support.

Using the current situation in Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, et. al. as the basis for why supply side doesn't work is an oversimplification.

[tj]

Not defending Monker, he is plenty capable of doing that himself, but I understand that when you believe in someone you want to believe what they say. Hilary has a long history of being harrassed by Republicans, so if you don't like Republicans it is conceivable that you would believe Hilary. I think that all of us, want to believe that the people we support are worthy of that.

That is not really where I am at. I am simply saying that she is going to win. I don't think any of this Email crap is going to matter, at all.

Sorry to imply that is where you are at. My apologies. It is where many of her supporters are, however, and I am 180 degrees opposite. I think it will continue to eat away at her, specifically whether or not she can be trusted. She said some time ago that she is happy to answer questions about the email issue, then was unwilling to meet with the IG. Perhaps that is the best legal strategy for her, but not the best at building an aura of trustworthiness.

That's what keeps this interesting. In about 5 months we will know for sure.

[Monker]

Not defending Monker, he is plenty capable of doing that himself, but I understand that when you believe in someone you want to believe what they say.

That is cult of personality bullshit. Either you care about facts or you don't.

It's not that simple. What are the "facts"? According to Hilary and her supporters, they are one thing. According to the State Dept. IG, they are another. Bush had "facts" when he invaded Iraq. Turned out to be way less than accurate. Was it deception or just poor intelligence? Depends on who you ask. Was Hilary's server and its aftermath so far deception or just doing what everyone else does? Depends on who you ask.

The facts are coming in against Hilary and they don't match up with her story (or stories) about it. As it becomes more clear that this isn't just another Republican witch hunt, and there have been plenty of those, I think that most of her support will peel off, leaving the cult of personality people supporting her. But her people don't want to just give up based on Republican hearsay.

Facts are not all that matters.

What matters is the law and if it can be proven that Clinton broke the law. I don't think posting articles on a web forums constitutes the same level of evidence that the FBI gathers or the DOJ cares above. Nobody REALLY knows what the FBI has found...only what has been leaked and ASSUMED as factual. We really don't know what is going on behind the curtain. People may think they know. The may believe whole-heartedly that the opinions they post are facts that matter. But, they don't.

This has gone on for years now. This has become no different than the guy in the grassy knoll shot Kennedy. Even after the FBI says there is not enough evidence to indict Clinton, people like TNC will cry bullshit and go into conspiracy theories, etc.

[Monker]

The IG acts like an official auditor or ombudsman to determine what those facts are. The IG has turned in its report. What Hillary claims she did or didn't do is irrelevant. Who cares? She is under a cloud of suspicion directly because of her actions. Since when is the defendant in a position of neutral fact-finder?

What the FBI says is what matters. What the IG says is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture..

Some news sources like McClatchy, were right on the WMDS. Others, like Judith Miller, were fed intelligence by the administration, and wrong.

If you go back in time, even Colin Powel was skeptical about the evidence before he presented it to the UN. It was all smoke and mirrors used to justify a war that the neo-cons wanted. They believed "evidence" from sketchy sources because it was what they WANTED to hear. So, they took it as fact. But, even after it was shown their source was an idiot, they continued on that line. John Stewart explained this very well on The Daily Show. There would be news stories where information about WND, or whatever, would be leaked from the Whitehouse to the media. So, the media would do a story on it. Then Cheney would go on interviews backing up this story - which was later proven THAT HE LEAKED. So, you have the VP as the source of a lean which was a lie, and then going on interviews to back up the leak that he was the source of...AND IT WAS ALL LIES.

So, yes, the media was deceived a bit in the beginning. But, if they would have done their fucking jobs and scrutinized the
evidence"' even a little bit, maybe the public would have seen that it was all a farce to get us into an invasion.

In both cases, partisans are going to believe whatever they want to believe. Trump has won his party's nomination making fun of the Bush legacy, including the Iraq War. So clearly the country has reached some sort of consensus about it being a shitty idea. It's no longer just Code Pink, Michael Moore, or the "liberal fringe."

The above is connecting dots that do not necessarily go together.

[tj]

Facts are not all that matters.

What matters is the law and if it can be proven that Clinton broke the law. I don't think posting articles on a web forums constitutes the same level of evidence that the FBI gathers or the DOJ cares above. Nobody REALLY knows what the FBI has found...only what has been leaked and ASSUMED as factual. We really don't know what is going on behind the curtain. People may think they know. The may believe whole-heartedly that the opinions they post are facts that matter. But, they don't.

This has gone on for years now. This has become no different than the guy in the grassy knoll shot Kennedy. Even after the FBI says there is not enough evidence to indict Clinton, people like TNC will cry bullshit and go into conspiracy theories, etc.

FBI doesn't make the decision, the Department of Justice which is ultimately the Attorney General, will make that decision based on what the FBI presents and what the perceived political fallout will be. If the FBI doesn't recommend prosecution, it won't happen. If they do, it might happen, but is extremely unlikely because she is Hilary.

So facts matter, the law matters and politics matters. ANY criminal or civil case brought by the government has a political element to it, from Hilary all the way to Ferguson, MO. It's not right, IMO, but that is how our system works. If you have power and influence, chances are you get a much better deal than if you don't. Hilary has both power and influence, and she's the Democrat's only hope at this point since it's her turn.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Using the current situation in Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, et. al. as the basis for why supply side doesn't work is an oversimplification.

Brownback said what he was doing was a "live experiment" in supply side. What happened in Kansas is EXACTLY what happens anytime supply side is implemented.

[The_Noble_Cause]

What the FBI says is what matters. What the IG says is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.

And just a week ago you were saying this was a scandal cooked up by Fox News. The IG was appointed by Obama, not Roger Ailes, and confirmed EVERYTHING I have been saying including the violation of the Federal Records Act. You are a fraud.

The above is connecting dots that do not necessarily go together.

I'll connect the dots and color outside the lines any way I fucking please. That's the difference between being an Independent and a Clinton suck-off. Thanks.

[The_Noble_Cause]

According to Politico, this is a myth that Trump is spreading with absolutely no real data to back him up.

Politico took the actual data from the primaries and caucuses and found the reason for such high turn-out was REPUBLICANS who normally do not vote in the primaries voted this time. Yes, there are some Independents and Democrats...but the number is no where near what Trump and people like you believe, and it won't help him much in November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ata-213897

Trump is 100% accurate. Republican primary turn out is the largest it has been since the 1980s. That's a fact. Where have these voters been hiding since the 80s? Either not voting or voting Democratic. Now, the mainstream pundits say Republican primary turnout does not correlate with general election turn out. Maybe. But the pundits have been wrong consistently about Trump since he entered the race.

[tj]

According to Politico, this is a myth that Trump is spreading with absolutely no real data to back him up.

Politico took the actual data from the primaries and caucuses and found the reason for such high turn-out was REPUBLICANS who normally do not vote in the primaries voted this time. Yes, there are some Independents and Democrats...but the number is no where near what Trump and people like you believe, and it won't help him much in November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ata-213897

Trump is 100% accurate. Republican primary turn out is the largest it has been since the 1980s. That's a fact. Where have these voters been hiding since the 80s? Either not voting or voting Democratic. Now, the mainstream pundits say Republican primary turnout does not correlate with general election turn out. Maybe. But the pundits have been wrong consistently about Trump since he entered the race.

I don't see that Hilary has much more of an upside. She has to count on turnout. A lot of people still haven't made up their mind about whether or not they would ever cast a vote for Trump. They know that they won't vote for Hillary, but aren't sure that they can vote for Trump either. I would not be surprised, however, if a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump just aren't saying it. They don't want the harassment that comes from association with him, but they agree with much of what he says. Sort of like people who won't admit to ever listening to the Bee Gees. They make fun of them in public because that is the cool thing to do. Yet they sold tens of millions of albums and were hugely popular.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't see that Hilary has much more of an upside. She has to count on turnout. A lot of people still haven't made up their mind about whether or not they would ever cast a vote for Trump. They know that they won't vote for Hillary, but aren't sure that they can vote for Trump either. I would not be surprised, however, if a lot of people who are going to vote for Trump just aren't saying it. They don't want the harassment that comes from association with him, but they agree with much of what he says. Sort of like people who won't admit to ever listening to the Bee Gees. They make fun of them in public because that is the cool thing to do. Yet they sold tens of millions of albums and were hugely popular.

Nobody likes Hillary except Monker. She could lose in a landslide to Ahmadinejad.

[steveo777]

According to Politico, this is a myth that Trump is spreading with absolutely no real data to back him up.

Politico took the actual data from the primaries and caucuses and found the reason for such high turn-out was REPUBLICANS who normally do not vote in the primaries voted this time. Yes, there are some Independents and Democrats...but the number is no where near what Trump and people like you believe, and it won't help him much in November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ata-213897

Trump is 100% accurate. Republican primary turn out is the largest it has been since the 1980s. That's a fact. Where have these voters been hiding since the 80s? Either not voting or voting Democratic. Now, the mainstream pundits say Republican primary turnout does not correlate with general election turn out. Maybe. But the pundits have been wrong consistently about Trump since he entered the race.

I believe you are correct. As of April 25th, here are the number of primary votes cast for both parties:

Republicans - 23,171,541
Democrats- 19,155,825

That's over 4 million more votes cast by the Republicans. How that holds up in the general is yet to be seen, but all conventional political wisdom has been wrong in this election cycle. Trump, according to the pundits, was never supposed to be where he is, as we know, but yet here he is, the presumptive nominee. Actually, he's the factual nominee, having attained the required number of delegates. The convention is just a formality. Those saying Trump can't win, I think are in for a cold hard dose of reality, in November. The only scenario I can see that changes that, is if Hillary gets indicted and Sanders ends up on the ballot for the general. In that case, I feel Trump would lose, but I could be wrong there.

[Monker]

What the FBI says is what matters. What the IG says is pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.

And just a week ago you were saying this was a scandal cooked up by Fox News. The IG was appointed by Obama, not Roger Ailes, and confirmed EVERYTHING I have been saying including the violation of the Federal Records Act. You are a fraud.

Quote it. I think you're misrepresenting what I said. I think you are lying that I said FOX created any scandal. You have publicly accused me of lying...but you are the one who has been caught by me multiple times lying about things I have said.

What I have said, and I will continue to say, is links and articles authored by people from FOX are not credible sources and you would have to go a lot further to prove anything than quoting those biased sources.

The above is connecting dots that do not necessarily go together.

I'll connect the dots and color outside the lines any way I fucking please. That's the difference between being an Independent and a Clinton suck-off. Thanks.[/quote]

There is a difference between having independent thought and creating conspiracy theories that have no real meaning to anything. It's no different than a Republican bringing a snowball into congress to prove that Climate Change isn't a fact.

[Monker]

According to Politico, this is a myth that Trump is spreading with absolutely no real data to back him up.

Politico took the actual data from the primaries and caucuses and found the reason for such high turn-out was REPUBLICANS who normally do not vote in the primaries voted this time. Yes, there are some Independents and Democrats...but the number is no where near what Trump and people like you believe, and it won't help him much in November.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ata-213897

Trump is 100% accurate. Republican primary turn out is the largest it has been since the 1980s. That's a fact. Where have these voters been hiding since the 80s? Either not voting or voting Democratic. Now, the mainstream pundits say Republican primary turnout does not correlate with general election turn out. Maybe. But the pundits have been wrong consistently about Trump since he entered the race.

You didn't read the article.

Yes, PRIMARY turnout set records. But, the data released from the voting showed that basically (I am summarizing) 95% of the voters were registered Republicans and voted in one of the last two elections. So, records were beaten 50%, or whatever....but only 5% of them are "new" voters. The other 95% would have voted in November anyway.

So, the DATA shows that Trump did not bring in very many new voters....he just got more Republicans involved in the primaries.

What you (and Trump) are ignoring is that primaries normally attract like 10% of voters who will vote in November. All Trump did was increase that from 10% to 15-20%. These are not Reagan Democrats who were in hiding, or independents. They are Republicans who suddenly became interested in voting in the primary.

[Monker]

I believe you are correct. As of April 25th, here are the number of primary votes cast for both parties:

Republicans - 23,171,541
Democrats- 19,155,825

That's over 4 million more votes cast by the Republicans. How that holds up in the general is yet to be seen, but all conventional political wisdom has been wrong in this election cycle. Trump, according to the pundits, was never supposed to be where he is, as we know, but yet here he is, the presumptive nominee. Actually, he's the factual nominee, having attained the required number of delegates. The convention is just a formality. Those saying Trump can't win, I think are in for a cold hard dose of reality, in November. The only scenario I can see that changes that, is if Hillary gets indicted and Sanders ends up on the ballot for the general. In that case, I feel Trump would lose, but I could be wrong there.

You didn't read the article either. What this means is out of that 4million, 3.8 million would have voted in November anyway. They ARE NOT NEW VOTERS. They are new to the primary voting, not the general election. 200,000 votes is not going to throw the election in Trump's favor.

[The_Noble_Cause]

You didn't read the article.

Yes, PRIMARY turnout set records. But, the data released from the voting showed that basically (I am summarizing) 95% of the voters were registered Republicans and voted in one of the last two elections. So, records were beaten 50%, or whatever....but only 5% of them are "new" voters. The other 95% would have voted in November anyway.

So, the DATA shows that Trump did not bring in very many new voters....he just got more Republicans involved in the primaries.

What you (and Trump) are ignoring is that primaries normally attract like 10% of voters who will vote in November. All Trump did was increase that from 10% to 15-20%. These are not Reagan Democrats who were in hiding, or independents. They are Republicans who suddenly became interested in voting in the primary.

I DID read your propaganda. Did you, you arrogant bastard? Politico admits they only looked at a "handful of states." The article itself mentions three: Florida, South Carolina, and Iowa. Trump has won easily over 30 primaries and caucuses. So the entire study is worthless. The last candidate who increased primary turnout like this was Obama, and he won the general too.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yes, PRIMARY turnout set records. But, the data released from the voting showed that basically (I am summarizing) 95% of the voters were registered Republicans and voted in one of the last two elections. So, records were beaten 50%, or whatever....but only 5% of them are "new" voters. The other 95% would have voted in November anyway.

Yea, data in 3 states. What a conclusive study.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There is a difference between having independent thought and creating conspiracy theories that have no real meaning to anything. It's no different than a Republican bringing a snowball into congress to prove that Climate Change isn't a fact.

Pretty clear that the guy shoveling conspiracy theories is you. Some of your greatest hits are included below -

That's just not true. She had permission to use it.

Clinton did not do this - at all. She's not even accused of it.
What you just said above is "retroactively classified". Whether you like it or not, that means that Clinton can make the argument that she did not send nor receive any Email's marked "classified".

[The_Noble_Cause]

What I have said, and I will continue to say, is links and articles authored by people from FOX are not credible sources and you would have to go a lot further to prove anything than quoting those biased sources.

Except articles I posted about the server were also from non-Fox sources. You dismissed all concerns about the issue.

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... oia-116116

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /82446130/

And all of these sources were 100% accurate. You were wrong. You are still wrong. Your defenses of Hillary were pure DNC propaganda.

Oh, and just for fun, here you are citing Bill O’Reilly (see below).
So I guess it’s okay to quote Fox News just so long as it suits your agenda.

A while back I was watching O'Riely. Even he said that the Email crap and Benghazi won't matter because the only people who care are those who have already decided to not vote for her. It's not convincing anybody.

[tj]

Reason # 3 is best.

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climat ... id/731497/

Newsmax reports from a strongly conservative viewpoint. Not as bad as Fox, who has for years gone way beyond reporting to advocacy. I tend to read things at Newsmax to get a counter to the usual liberal outlets (Yahoo, AP, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.). I don't even bother with Fox, MSNBC or CNN because they are so far in the tank it is unbelievable.

[Boomchild]

How many times does Biden have to say he doesn't want it? I myself, would never vote for him. He made every wrong move one could make. For example, his advice to Obama, don't go after Bin Laden.

I lived in Delaware for several years and I would NEVER vote for Joe "Foot in Mouth" Biden. This guy is charging rent to the federal government to house his secret service team for living on his property.

[The_Noble_Cause]

How many times does Biden have to say he doesn't want it? I myself, would never vote for him. He made every wrong move one could make. For example, his advice to Obama, don't go after Bin Laden.

I lived in Delaware for several years and I would NEVER vote for Joe "Foot in Mouth" Biden. This guy is charging rent to the federal government to house his secret service team for living on his property.

This is just the media being lazy again. Biden is not entering the race.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I tend to read things at Newsmax to get a counter to the usual liberal outlets (Yahoo, AP, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.). I don't even bother with Fox, MSNBC or CNN because they are so far in the tank it is unbelievable.

Not a sane or remotely fair comparison. Newsmax started as an online conservative news site. A counter example would be openly liberal news sites like The Nation or Mother Jones. NBC is owned by General Electric. GE is a tax dodging, arms manufacturer. MSNBC shifted into a liberal version of Fox after Bush was elected. Previously, it was home to Michael Savage, Alan Keyes, and Joe Scarborough - who is still there. Phil Donahue was fired from MSNBC for speaking out against Iraq. MSNBC has since swung back to the center since getting new executives. Real liberals on MSNBC, like Ed schultz, who spoke out against the TPP, were told to get lost.

Is there such a thing as "liberal outlets"? Yea, Democracy Now with Amy Goodman and maybe Thom Hartmann on the Russian Government-owned RT. Everything else is corporate crap.

[The_Noble_Cause]

FAA not adequately funded or staffed to inspect airplane maintenance sites.
There's that blasted big government again wildly out of control.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/ ... bing-truth

[Boomchild]

TNC, I'm not sure that anyone can. I know Texas is done. If you entered now,you couldn't be on their ballot. I think several other cut off dates have passed. The only question is Sanders or Clinton. The Republicans bitching about Trump, Bush family, McCain, Romney, ect, Those Republicans made me take a better look at Trump. If Trump scares them, GOOD! Looks like McCain is losing his own State.

Seems to me the main point to adding a third person on the ballot is to try and screw Trump's chances of winning. I doubt they seriously think a person entering the race now could actually overtake the current leaders in the race.

[Boomchild]

Remember when B.O. promised that his administration was going to be the most clear and transparent administration? Guess actions like this is his idea of being "clear and transparent".

State Department admits briefing footage on Iran deal intentionally deleted

The State Department, in a stunning admission, acknowledged Wednesday that an official intentionally deleted several minutes of video footage from a 2013 press briefing, where a top spokeswoman seemed to acknowledge misleading the press over the Iran nuclear deal.

“There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday, in admitting that an unidentified official had a video editor “excise” the segment.

The State Department had faced questions earlier this year over the block of missing tape from a December 2013 briefing. At that briefing, then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked by Fox News’ James Rosen about an earlier claim that no direct, secret talks were underway between the U.S. and Iran – when, in fact, they were.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/state- ... li=BBnb7Kz

[tj]

Talked to a friend who is a lawyer. What he said is, if he took a plea deal, he has to answer questions. If he refuses, off to jail for obstruction. No taking the 5th.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/01/j ... her-emails

Does he have to answer questions in only the case where he was granted a deal or on anything related to the email issues? From what I understand, the plea was with regard to the fbi investigation. His 5th amendment response is to a separate civil suit.

[Boomchild]

Suck it Hill...

With her campaign sinking in the polls, Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.

In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.

As the Washington Post reports, “Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue.” During Bill Clinton’s tenure as Laureate’s chancellor, the school spent over $200 million a year on aggressive telemarketing, flashy Internet banner ads, and billboards designed to lure often unprepared students from impoverished countries to enroll in its for-profit classes.

...

A Bloomberg examination of IYF’s public filings show that in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.

This whole Trump University is so over hyped. What you have is a bunch of people that did not feel they got what they paid for. Then you have evidence that is not the opinion they voiced when filling out surveys after taking the courses\seminars. I think what you have here is buyer's remorse. It also could be that once they took the course they discovered they did not have the ability to do what was presented in the courses. Keep in mind that this program was basically an infomercial product. A get rich with real estate pitch. The type that has all kinds of disclaimers attached to it that tell you that the examples of successful results is "not typical". I think everyone has seen these types of programs since they are dozens of them that have come and gone. Then you have to question the people who take stock in such things. The real estate business does require business acumen and isn't a "anybody's game".

Also where has the public been all these decades with the other companies pushing the same exact type of program? Where have they been with all the shady Multilevel Marketing companies (i.e. Amway) that have been rampant for decades?