Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 18, 2016

"It's Time To Drain The Swamp In Washington, D.C. That's Why I'm Proposing A Package Of Ethics Reforms To Make Our Government Honest Once Again." - Donald J. Trump

First: I am going to re-institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for 5 years after they leave government service. I am going to ask Congress to pass this ban into law so that it cannot be lifted by executive order.

Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Now you know why the establishment on both sides of the aisle fear Trump. Why, even tho they may "support" him, they care little if he wins. Banning the despicable past time of become a "lobbyist" or "consultant" after leaving office amounts to nothing more than bribery and selling out. Its a threat to the livelyhood of both Ds and Rs that are so accustomed to leaving office and getting their rewards for voting in benefit of the corporate sponsors, not the American people.

#1 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-18 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | Posted by aescal at

Why should anyone believe anything Donald says?

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2016-10-18 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Does that include ethical reforms for paying legal settlements out of a charitable foundation?

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 11:42 AM | Reply

"Does that include ethical reforms for paying legal settlements out of a charitable foundation?"

Just because he'd be a terrible president doesn't mean that these aren't a completely reasonable set of proposals, 726. Your deflection here comes off as ill conceived.

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2016-10-18 11:49 AM | Reply

Just because he'd be a terrible president doesn't mean that these aren't a completely reasonable set of proposals

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Even the Devil can quote Scripture.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2016-10-18 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Great ideas
Non starters

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-10-18 11:53 AM | Reply

Great ideas
Non starters

This sentiment is reminiscent of the Bernie threads from a few months ago.

#7 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 12:03 PM | Reply

His only interest in these proposals, which have been around forever, is to try to get back to what the polling data told him would be of interest to most voters.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 01:53 PM | Reply

these aren't a completely reasonable set of proposals,

I will agree that they are. I am just wondering who wrote them for him.

If he wanted real ethics reform in Washington, he would ask for a lifetime ban on lobbying along with a complete outlaw of private money in political campaigns direct or indirect.

So long as our government is for sale to the highest bidder there will always be corrupt politicians willing to make a few million on the side for passing donor friendly laws.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 03:47 PM | Reply

Whats sad is that with this proposal Trump is now the more progressive candidate when it comes to Washington Reform.

Hillary is the NeoCon who adores and cherishes Citizens United and lobbyist money...

Sad...

#10 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-18 03:55 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10 They now have both called for Washington reform. Donny is a day late and a dollar short.

"As president, Hillary will:

Overturn Citizens United -- the Supreme Court case that unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into U.S. elections. Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will protect Americans' right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections. She will also propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United within her first 30 days in office.
End secret, unaccountable money in politics. We need federal legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, Hillary will sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. She'll also push for an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.
Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to give small donors greater influence."

www.hillaryclinton.com

#11 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 04:01 PM | Reply

Laughable.

#12 | Posted by fresno500 at 2016-10-18 05:00 PM | Reply

If the Clinton's would just refrain from politics, overall corruption would measurably decrease.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-10-18 06:01 PM | Reply

#13

And butt hurt Republicans have an issue with the concept of rate of occurrence:

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
www.washingtonpost.com

#14 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2016-10-18 06:12 PM | Reply

#14

30 more than needed.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-18 06:17 PM | Reply

If the Clinton's would just refrain from politics, overall corruption would measurably decrease.

#13 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2016-10-18 06:01 PM | FLAG:

#13
And butt hurt Republicans have an issue with the concept of rate of occurrence:
A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast
www.washingtonpost.com

#14 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2016-10-18 06:12 PM | FLAG:

#14
30 more than needed.

#15 | POSTED BY ET_AL


Posted #13 on wrong thread. Was aimed at post regarding the dead having difficulty getting to the voting booth on election day on time. Though, understandably, does not mitigate the applicability nor legitimacy of ET AL's retort.

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2016-10-18 06:25 PM | Reply

30 more than needed.
#15 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Help me out, ET AL. Remind me why the Justices declared that a single instance of voter fraud justified the voter ID measures. Isn't such an argument based on the slippery slope fallacy? I'm sure the reasoning is more complicated (and obviously appropriate considering the source) than I am currently considering due to my defective memory.

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2016-10-18 06:30 PM | Reply

In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone) have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID. (That doesn't include voters without ID who didn't show up, or recordkeeping mistakes by officials.) Some of those 3,000 may have been fraudulent ballots. But how many legitimate voters have already been turned away?
www.washingtonpost.com

#18 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2016-10-18 06:40 PM | Reply

#14

30 more than needed.

#15 | Posted by et_al

So you would disenfranchise millions of voters just to prevent one occurrence of fraud?

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-18 06:55 PM | Reply

#14
30 more than needed.
#15 | POSTED BY ET_AL

GW Bush supporter Kathleen Harris, while Florida's SoS, worked with a pro-Dubya business to purge the voters' lists of 80,000 names. Their crimes? They had similar names to TEXAS felons.

That's a little more impactful than 31 names, spread across millions of voters was. Ask Al Gore.

#20 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-19 11:32 AM | Reply

"Ask Al Gore" -ng3

"Al Gore, how did you lose the state of TN, where you were once a popular Senator?"
Gore: Well, I momentarily forgot I was running to be POTUS rather than undersecretary of the EPA. Also, I invented the internet, but haters attacked my personal genius..."

#21 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-19 11:39 AM | Reply

Help me out ...

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists,11 that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,12 and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor13 -- though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud -- demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear. www.law.cornell.edu

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-19 07:01 PM | Reply

#19

Different question than I addressed.

#20

WTF does that have to do with voter ID?

Either of you have any other deflections to get off you chests?

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2016-10-19 07:11 PM | Reply

WTF does that have to do with voter ID?

Like Voter ID, it's a way to disenfranchise people.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 07:46 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort