This week’s show starts with a look at what appeared to be Donald Trump’s softening stance toward illegal immigrants. Has Trump really changed his tune? If he has will it matter? Then it’s a discussion of the Clinton Foundation. Mike doesn’t think there’s much to see in the AP’s report on Foundation donor influence in the Clinton-run State Department, but Jay disagrees. What they both agree on is that EpiPens cost too much, and that the only way to fix that is to have a more competitive market for pharmaceuticals (good luck with that). This week’s Under The Radar story is a federal appeals court’s decision to allow Ohio to eliminate ‘Golden Week’ voting – a period in which people can register and vote at the same time. Surprisingly, Mike actually agrees with Jay and the court on this. Finally, the Guys talk about the University of Chicago’s statement on free speech and trigger warnings on campus.
I like your show. Here comes the ‘but’… But, when 2 white guys talk about minority perception, it sounds like 2 husbands in the lobby talking about the childbirth being easier than they thought. Many inner city minorities like our public schools and living in the inner city (we want the schools improved not gutted). We think “school choice” will just improve suburban private schools that are prohibitive for us to get to (and we remember the history of white flight). Voter ID laws are perceived as tactical assaults against older and poorer minorities. Minorities like myself have never thought Republicans are racist, however, many of us think most voting racists are Republicans (very few remaining Democrats promote the Confederate Flag). Let me illustrate my point… Your daughter wants to go to the neighbor’s house to play with their kids. You know the father who is an upstanding citizen, however his brother a known sex offender. Are you comfortable letting her go? Unless Republicans confront this long lasting perception, this party is going to constrict with the national demographic trend. Finally, just because there are some women and minority politicians, the data does not confirm Jay’s perception.
I recently subscribed to the podcast and generally love it. Thank you!
I have a comment to make, or perhaps a bone to pick about your take on HRC and the Clinton Foundation. I understand that the Clintons have been the target of the right for decades now so I don’t blame ordinary people for have a prejudice against them. It’s the same treatment African American males get in the news with similar effects. However I would expect more from two highly educated wonks such as the hosts.
Particularly, both hosts have failed to address the single most important question about the whole “scandal”: what do they have to gain? Is Hillary Clinton going to make any money from a donation to the Foundation? It’s a charity that does great work across the globe. They’re responsible for saving many lives, literally. None of the donations come anywhere to the pockets of any Clintons and if you think Chelsea or Bill actually need to work, then you’re mistaken.
Simply, where is the quo in the quid pro quo? Or are we supposedly naive to believe they would run a charity for charitable purposes?
Thank you, again, for a great podcast!
Thanks so much for subscribing! I agree with you about all the good the Clinton Foundation has done. The concern is that Hillary Clinton may favor Foundation donors with enhanced access to her as well as support for their policy goals – access and support that non-donors may not receive. There’s no evidence that this has happened, but it’s a valid concern to raise. What Hillary Clinton would gain from this would be support for causes she and/or her family members deem important. More directly, foundation donations help pay for travel and expenses for foundation officers, many of whom are Clintons or political allies of the Clintons.
I hope this answers your question. If you have any follow-ups, or you have other questions, definitely feel free to comment or email us.
Those are legitimate concerns however, calling a concern a scandal or calling for investigation is absurd because there is no evidence whatsoever anything inappropriate happened.
No one can really articulate how Hillary is actually benefiting from the donations. Sure, the donations keep the foundation afloat and pay salaries and travel expenses but to argue that Hillary is selling out US foreign political interests so that some people she may or may not know have jobs is beyond the pale.
Contrast that with Trump Foundation’s illegal payment to Pam Bondi. A charity directly influencing a politician with an illegal contribution( because charities are supposed to be politically inert). Bondi drops her investigation of Trump “University” and in return gets a sizable amount of money in her cofers. Will anyone call for an investigation?