← Previous Post: | Next Post:


For-Profit Cynicism Knows No Party

The Clintons were just as willing to enrich themselves via the scummy tax-syphons as many Republicans were and are. Bill’s bogus chancellorship at a for-profit school paid him many millions to jet around the world now and then making inspirational speeches. UD is obviously a strong Hillary supporter, but the Clintons are paying now for what they did, and I’m afraid they deserve to.

Go to my Click-Thru U category for years of incredulity and anger that this should-be-criminal enterprise continues to thrive.

Margaret Soltan, August 24, 2016 11:28AM
Posted in: CLICK-THRU U.

Trackback URL for this post:

8 Responses to “For-Profit Cynicism Knows No Party”

  1. Sean O Says:

    It is shameful. And preying on the hopes and fears of the most vulnerable. Shameful as Trump U.

    They should all be tarred & feathered for these dirty deeds.

  2. Contingent Cassandra Says:

    This one really bothered me, too. Won’t change my vote, but ugh.

  3. Bernard Carroll Says:

    It’s classically amoral… they do it because they can.

  4. theprofessor Says:

    To be fair here, this is who they are. You might as well blame the ants swarming the potato chips at a picnic–it’s just what they do, and we all know that. Bonnie and Clyde have been at it for 30+ years and that is not going to change. A Hillary presidency will culminate (not necessarily end) with an impeachment over past and future misdeeds. Special prosecutors, The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, obstruction of justice, the War Against Women, perjury upon perjury…we know how this song is going to go on both sides of the choir.

  5. Bernard Carroll Says:

    I accept that ants are amoral.

  6. Stephen Karlson Says:

    Where there is government activity, there is rent-seeking, and where there is rent-seeking, there will be scummy tax-syphons. Love the term, and appropriated it for future use.

  7. JackOH Says:

    The election still looks like Hillary’s to me, barring some surprise package.

    Quick question: I recall one thread of feminist thought used to be something like allowing women in non-traditional vocations, such as politics, would bring fresh talents and even better outcomes than if menfolk alone were calling the shots. The argument was not unpersuasive to me. How does Hillary fill the bill?

  8. Derek Says:

    One of the main arguments the suffragists used was that allowing women into politics as voters would bring greater morality to politics and would help end activities such as war.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE