You can't use Thailand or the Philippines as an example. Most banana republics of the world have the leader leaving office with a sizable percentage of national wealth. The US doesn't work that way.

You can't use Thailand or the Philippines as an example. Most banana republics of the world have the leader leaving office with a sizable percentage of national wealth. The US doesn't work that way.

I can't use them as an example?

First, Thailand is not really a banana republic. Second, I was referring specifically to the former PM of Thailand who entered politics as a billionaire. When he ran for office, he said that there was no way he would be corrupt since he was already wealthy and didn't need the money. He promptly stole hundreds of millions using his position to enrich family and friends.

The argument that because someone is rich and will act differently towards Wall Street or anyone else is absurd.

WTF are you talking about? Sure, US politicians enriching themselves through public office aren't going to attain a "sizable percentage of national wealth" simply because the US pie is so much larger it'd be impossible to take a substantial enough slice relative to a vastly smaller country's GDP ~ but that sure as hell doesn't follow that the basic human nature of someone like that couldn't still apply. The only difference is scale, but plenty of rich folks can still be greedy and/or corrupt; wealth hardly equates to virtue. More likely they amassed all that money in the first place by continuing to want more of it, and gotten used to doing things the way they want without listening to people telling them No.

That doesn't mean Drumpf would be a corrupt politician necessarily, but simply being rich doesn't rule it out is all. I don't think he's a scumbag because he's rich, more that he was a scumbag first and has parlayed that into being rich. The tiger doesn't suddenly change his stripes just because he's found better digs.

I'm not really sure I know what you are talking about.

I was replying to the comment that since Trump is rich, no one can buy him. The actual comment was,

"The guy is a multi-billionaire. You can't buy him. Nobody can buy him."

I'm saying just because you are personally rich doesn't mean you can't be bought and there are lots of examples of other leaders doing the same.

We're in agreement, I was responding to the post that took issue w/ yours...

Yea I'm wondering how many payrolls Hillary has had to meet or if she employs more blacks, woman and Hispanics than Trump does. I'm sure she hasn't just be an government employee her whole life.