Who are you voting for?

[justjoinedtopost]

Or her jokingly bragging about how she managed to get a rapist off, even knowing he was guilty: "Forever destroying my faith in polygraphs". Her main argument was using the accusation that the twelve year old was "asking for it". The poor girl had "severe internal and external injuries" and knocked unconscious into a coma, to give you an idea of the damage: She required stitches to her genitals. The woman, now 52 says her life has never been the same.

Let's not get into her flippant attitude toward drone strikes she approved in the Middle East and the deaths she caused in Libya. I'm not a psychiatrist but to me this sounds like sociopathic behaviour.

The defending of the rape issue bothers me. That's the sort of salacious thing that can get spread across the globe by word of mouth, but you damn near have to seek out fringe elements to have a serious conversation about drone strikes.

I don't see anything wrong with Hillary's defense of this man. She supposedly didn't want the case. Once she had it, it was her job to mount a vigorous defense. Her laughing about it after the fact...was she laughing about the rape, or just laughing while she talked legal shop?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
This is a non-issue for me as a voter. Unpleasant as hell, but still a non-issue.

Now the drone strikes and foreign policy issue are a completely different story. The civil liberties issue is a completely different story. The government surveillance issue is a completely different story. The kowtowing to corporate money is a completely different story. THIS is why I refuse to vote for Hillary.

That doesn't mean I think Trump is any better. To the contrary; I believe he is far worse. No, he hasn't ordered any drone strikes, or pulled the levers that toppled governments. But that is only because he hasn't had his chance yet. If you look at how the man has exercised his power and his influence where he has been able, it is clear he would be every bit as bad and then some, largely due to the fact that he is mentally unstable.

So I guess I see a vote for Hillary as a vote for a corrupt, hypocritical system that puts on a good face. It is a pretense of liberalism. It disgusts me.
But a vote for Trump has potential. I live in a country that learned nothing from W's administration. Maybe watching Mike Pence, Giuliani, Hannity, etc... do an encore of the Cheney and friends routine will be enough to snap America to its senses. And if not, then we deserve to perish.





P.S. A big hug to any and all Trump supporters who may or may not have been wounded by words like "deplorables" or "basement dwellers". Just remember...

Spoiler: they are only words.

 

[Mila_]

They were in the primaries when this was stated, when they were in fierce competition with each other. What was she supposed to say "Bernie's ideas are great and totally realistic! I just don't like them"

Is political campaign an excuse to say one thing on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday? It's a lame justification.

In a world not controlled by donors, candidates run on merit and what they say is what they think. That way when you go to vote you know the kind of person you are voting for and you trust the policies that they will fight to implement.

But we all know democracy is pretty on paper and broken in practice. With the political class in general and Hillary in particular, any moral value she may hold is for sale like the rest of the things she owns, because everything with Hillary Clinton is ultimately about lining her own pockets. So she tells her donors behind closed doors that free college is delusional when she is fundraising, but once that phase is over, she has no problem talking about... wait for it... "free debt college". It does have a better ring to it, doesn't it? One can only marvel.

In the same way, HRC has no problem playing dirty against Bernie Sanders when the primaries are at stake, planning to smear him and destroy his campaign in emails with the DNC leadership who was supposed to be neutral towards the candidates, stacking the super delegates against Bernie, and even rigging some of the election and committing voter fraud by certain accounts. But it is all okay because Debbie Wasserman Shultz' job as chairman of the DNC is only a part time job. Her real gig is being HRC's campaign strategist. But now that the primaries are behind us, she has no problem working shoulder to shoulder with Bernie Sanders and asking him to rally for her... and the guy, the one guy who was supposedly fighting the establishment goes for it! It is perfect! a match made in heaven.

Now Bernie will deliver the votes of the disenfranchised and unsatisfied youth, so they can vote again for 8 more years of Obama, basement dwelling, and no future.

 

[JoleneBrody]

... and a continuation of the already drastic building hope for our future.

if we are so lucky.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

So Trump claims he is uniquely positioned to fix our broken tax code, since he is an expert at exploiting it.

I agree. For years I have been insisting we should pardon all murderers and make them detectives, but nobody will listen. They just keep changing the subject, wanting to ask me questions about my medications.

Trump is right. We need a tax strategy that benefits our oligarchs without causing them to embrace the appearance of impropriety. We need a Trump tax plan.

Spoiler: ALL HAIL YOUR NEW RULERS, THE KING AND HIS SLOVENIAN QUEEN!!!

Think we are going to need a new flag. Old Glory has been well and truly disgraced at this point.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Is political campaign an excuse to say one thing on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday?

 

[LuckySmiles]

I see Johnson is ahead of Trump now in the polls of ACF bahah.

Any predictions of what cock tease of all cock teases Assange's big campaign ruining info will be tomorrow? He'd make a fine webcam model.

I have a few good guesses mostly on arms dealing, pertaining to Libya especially.

I hope it's big enough but not...country destroying big. I have lots of theories about the last 20 years, but I can't get into too much detail or I will be on one of those lists fo sho.

I think Obama is pulling for a UN gig after his presidency and I hope nope nope nope. He's like that person you thought was your friend and then goes into every other country and UN meeting trashing you at every opportunity behind your back.
I can't believe the time he's spending actively campaigning for Clinton while he's still in office. That's a pretty big ethical concern for the incumbent. Our tax dollars are paying him to campaign for someone many americans are vehemently against.
It makes sense though.
There's potential for so much he could be implicated in if Clinton ever gets justice. And If she ever really does go down, I'd imagine she's taking errrrybody with her.

 

[Mila_]

I see Johnson is ahead of Trump now in the polls of ACF bahah.

Any predictions of what cock tease of all cock teases Assange's big campaign ruining info will be tomorrow? He'd make a fine webcam model.

I have a few good guesses mostly on arms dealing, pertaining to Libya especially.

I hope it's big enough but not...country destroying big. I have lots of theories about the last 20 years, but I can't get into too much detail or I will be on one of those lists fo sho.

I think Obama is pulling for a UN gig after his presidency and I hope nope nope nope. He's like that person you thought was your friend and then goes into every other country and UN meeting trashing you at every opportunity behind your back.
I can't believe the time he's spending actively campaigning for Clinton while he's still in office. That's a pretty big ethical concern for the incumbent. Our tax dollars are paying him to campaign for someone many americans are vehemently against.
It makes sense though.
There's potential for so much he could be implicated in if Clinton ever gets justice. And If she ever really does go down, I'd imagine she's taking errrrybody with her.

I doubt Assange has anything big because he wouldn't be building it up this much if he did. And even if he surprised me and did have something incriminating on her, it will be hard for it to pick up steam since mainstream media is campaigning so hard for HRC. There is no way they will pick up the story and report the truth. Look at how many things the Clintons could be tried for, but nobody even dares to touch any of it. When I was doing research on all the scandals that happened when I was kid, I couldn't believe they didnt get even a slap on the wrist for the Mena Airport drug trafficking case. It really is remarkable how they manage to come out unscathed every single time.

But she is afraid or Seth Rich wouldn't be in heaven as we speak.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Been thinking more and more lately that the poll is not set up correctly.

It should also include Mike Pence.

Yes I know he's Trump's running mate and not actually running for President. But let's be honest here. If Trump does get elected we all know the odds of him being impeached within the first year run in the 80th to 90th percentile range. So the reality is Mike Pence will probably be the President for the bulk of the next 4 years in that case.

 

[Osmia]

I wish the presidential and VP candidates on the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian tickets had been formed with the candidates in opposite places--i.e.,

• Pence, Trump
• Kaine, Clinton
• Weld, Johnson

All three of the current presidential nominees are problematic, and all three VP candidates are generally sane, competent leaders without the baggage of their ticket-mates. However, only with the libertarians would such a switch have been remotely plausible (neither Trump nor Clinton would have accepted the no. 2 spot). Weld would have been the better choice for libertarian presidential candidate.

 

[Osmia]

Good article about Trump's involvement with the empty "Old Post Office" building in D.C. that he remodeled into a luxury hotel. This is where he made the recent announcement that "President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/how-donald-trump-won-control-of-a-prized-dc-landmark

 

[Chezza]

Weld would have been the better choice for libertarian presidential candidate.

ABSOLUTELY!! omg I wish. If Gary does get it, they planned on being a team, or so they said. Weld has a better articulation to him that I appreciate.

 

[Osmia]

Indiana parade float depicts Clinton in an electric chair with Trump ready to pull the switch.

Here's an excerpt, but it's worth reading the whole article.

The Aurora Farmer’s Fair, which is put on by the Lions Club, is the biggest event of the year in the Ohio River town 35 miles west of Cincinnati. The parade went right down Second Street Saturday with nearly 200 bands, floats and groups.

One float in particular caught the eye of some people who weren’t happy to see it. It depicted Clinton in an electric chair with Trump ready to pull the switch. The float also featured an Easter Island head painted black with a black face and a sign that identified it as President Obama.
. . . .
But they crossed the line this year, according to Aurora mom Penny Britton, who condemned it as sexist and racist in a Facebook post Sunday,

"Who thinks this is appropriate for a fair parade where children, some of them minorities and girls, are marching and playing instruments and watching? Who thinks this is something to laugh at or be proud of?" Britton posted. "This is disgusting.This makes me embarrassed to say I live here. This is Aurora, Indiana. Congratulations."

Hundreds of people commented on Britton's post, and most agreed with her.
. . . .
[Float builder] Linkmeyer, who says he is a Democrat, says he didn’t mean to offend anyone and next year may lampoon the media.

"It’s all in fun. Laughter is the best medicine in life and this country needs more laughter — and the people that are offended by it, I’m sorry. Don’t come to the parade next time."

I hate these self-serving non-apology "apologies." This is a particularly egregious example. Hey, Linkmeyer, maybe you should not come to the parade next time.

 

[LuckySmiles]

So butthead Assange is still hanging onto info and they didn't put out anything.

But! coincidentally the Obama administration dropped charges yesterday against Marc Turi...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

This is exactly what I was hoping for some wikileaks about. Supposedly theres still more to come...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

So butthead Assange is still hanging onto info and they didn't put out anything.

lol

I watched that live on the infowars channel. About 30 min of a raspy assed Alex Jones croaking, and some young punk ranting because he hasn't figured out yet all his conspiracy theories are bullshit, and a completely retarded music video, and a few ads. Then the Wikileaks infomercial. When I realized Assange was only going to be revealing what a blue waffle he was, I said "f*ck it" and went to bed.

 

[Behemoth]

I don't get the argument that Trump using the tax code as it is written constitues sone grave abuse? This seems like an odd argument, like...

What did you expect? He ignores his feduciary responsibilities to companies? He pay more than legally required? Like, of all the things to roast Trump (and there is plenty,) this one seems really dumb.

Then again, taxation is theft so whatever.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I don't get the argument that Trump using the tax code as it is written constitues sone grave abuse? This seems like an odd argument, like...

What did you expect? He ignores his feduciary responsibilities to companies? He pay more than legally required? Like, of all the things to roast Trump (and there is plenty,) this one seems really dumb.

Then again, taxation is theft so whatever.

The thing for me is, it highlights the absurdity of the "OMG TRUMP IS THA BESS BUZNESSMAN EVER" mentality. He can manage scams like Trump U ok, I guess.

Another reason it's a story, according to Trump himself, the system is crooked. Claims he's going to make the tax code fair. And look at the nonsense he offers up.

Taxes in the US need overhauling...

 

[Behemoth]

I mean, using tax loopholes would make one a good businessman. He lost money during an economic downturn. Not that shocking. Like, he IS a good businessman, in a relative scale.

Like, how does Trump using a bad tax code make him suddenly ineligable to speak to it? (And Hillary used the same laws, notably.) Again, there is plenty to hem Trump on but this is dumb. Again, what is he to do? Pay more than he is legally required to? Not use the law to save money? Why? Beyond feduciary responsibilities to shareholders, why would he be obligated to pay more than the law requires anyway?

Like, it comes off as, I don't know, petulent? There are actual issues, this isn't one. Trump has economic issues but Hillary can't make arguments as hers aren't much diffetent. This is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Osmia]

I don't get the argument that Trump using the tax code as it is written constitues sone grave abuse? This seems like an odd argument, like...

What did you expect? He ignores his feduciary responsibilities to companies? He pay more than legally required? Like, of all the things to roast Trump (and there is plenty,) this one seems really dumb.

Then again, taxation is theft so whatever.

Trump's companies are privately owned, by Trump, so fiduciary duty doesn't apply. I tend to agree with your main point, however. The problem isn't that he avoided paying taxes (presumably legally), it's that the tax code allows this to be done in the first place--e.g., Warren Buffett's comment that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.

 

[Osmia]

"Libertarian VP Candidate Says His Primary Focus Is Taking Down Trump"

Interesting statement from Bill Weld, the libertarian VP candidate.

 

[Behemoth]

"Libertarian VP Candidate Says His Primary Focus Is Taking Down Trump"

Interesting statement from Bill Weld, the libertarian VP candidate.

And precisely why they're failing, to be honest. Well, that and the fact that Johnson in particular is terrible at actually communicating any sort of libertarian principles (and honestly doesn't seem to have any.)

Trump's companies are privately owned, by Trump, so fiduciary duty doesn't apply. I tend to agree with your main point, however. The problem isn't that he avoided paying taxes (presumably legally), it's that the tax code allows this to be done in the first place--e.g., Warren Buffett's comment that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.

Wasn't sure on the fiduciary, thanks for clarification there.

I mean, the problem with the Warren Buffet point is that is true, precisely because of the fact most of his money is either invested into actual property or is capital gains or other such things, and as such his 'income' is lower. This is, of course, not necessarily a bug, but rather a feature. The real problem isn't that he's taxed 'less' than his secretary, but that such things are taxed at all. Of course, the double flips are that (as I said) it appears the Clintons used the same laws and methods to minimize their taxes as Trump did, and those laws went into effect under Bill.

I mean, this wouldn't be an issue if we had any of the number of plans, including I think Trump's claim that he wanted to do, what, four page tax code? I can't really be bothered to look it up. Could also be solved by the moral answer of no taxes (and yes I'll bring it up every time. )

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Trump's companies are privately owned, by Trump, so fiduciary duty doesn't apply. I tend to agree with your main point, however. The problem isn't that he avoided paying taxes (presumably legally), it's that the tax code allows this to be done in the first place--e.g., Warren Buffett's comment that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.

For more on the fiduciary angle, skip to 15:25 of this video. Very telling.



Now is David Johnston telling the truth here, or is this just a political smear job?
It has the ring of truth when you examine Trump's record, and indeed, his own words. Does this sound like a man worrying about his fiduciary responsibilities? Or does it sound like a con artist, an economic predator?

I mean, using tax loopholes would make one a good businessman. He lost money during an economic downturn. Not that shocking. Like, he IS a good businessman, in a relative scale.

I'm not sure what scale he is a good businessman on. He does have some wealth, there is no doubt about that.
But why? Why in the world, if he is as rich as he claims to be, would he run a scam like Trump University? Why?
Ok, if he screwed all these people over, at least he got his name on some magnificent structures, and then got to claim he did it. But what the f*ck was the payoff in, of all things, a goddamned make-money-with-real-estate scam?
Taking advantage of underage illegal immigrants? Is this true? More smoke? The mark of a good businessman?

Like, how does Trump using a bad tax code make him suddenly ineligable to speak to it? (And Hillary used the same laws, notably.) Again, there is plenty to hem Trump on but this is dumb.

I don't think he is ineligible to speak on it. Perhaps a better question than "how does Trump using a bad tax code make him suddenly ineligable to speak to it?" is this one: "If Trump is so eager to speak on this, show everyone how brilliant he is, then why threaten to sue to try and shut the story down?"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ny-t...f-lawsuit-threat-publishing/story?id=42508026

Like, it comes off as, I don't know, petulent? There are actual issues, this isn't one. Trump has economic issues but Hillary can't make arguments as hers aren't much diffetent. This is just smoke and mirrors.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't view any of this as petulant or smoke-and-mirrors. This is huge.

Whatever Hillary might have done wrong is lost in the smoke being blown by conspiracy theorists. Why be mad at her? Shouldn't we be more angry with the people who investigated her? If Benghazi was such a crime, why can't these House investigations say so? If "bleaching" her emails was treason, shouldn't we be more upset with the FBI for letting her off?

A haze of stupidity has settled over this country. Maybe it started back in the 1980's when we decided we could pardon everyone involved in Iran-Contra, just as long as we made sure crack dealers did every decade in prison they had coming. Maybe it started when Ford pardoned Nixon. Then again, maybe it's always been this way.

There is a right wing that encourages, and profits from, getting ignorant people to believe stupid things. They are at odds with a left wing that is trying like hell to pretend racial and gender inequalities are as bad as they were in 1960. While they divide us with soundbite battles on the stage of our corporate media, the corporations themselves get what the hell they want; they get the money, they get the power, we get the fucking drama.

So now we have Hillary, a visible politician for decades (even when she wasn't holding office). Yuck! I burnt out on hating her back in the 90's, but she is still around for a whole new generation to scream "Killary for prison!" So we going to indict her? Then what? Pardon her? Commute her sentence? Or should we just give the brain-dead angry mob what they want and send her to the guillotine on live tv? I give exactly zero fucks about Bill's mistresses, or what kind of pissing contest Hillary had with them. If Bill raped somebody, and you have to wait until an election to give a shit, one way or another you are getting played.

In the other corner, weighing in at 200 lbs of hair, .039 oz of hands, we have Donald Trump. And if Hillary has evaded justice in the political arena, he has absolutely made a mockery of it in the business world. Look at the lawsuits. It is a matter of public record, this man has broken the law. Repeatedly. He is dishonest. He is corrupt. He is unhinged, and we can count ourselves lucky if his quest for power is the undoing of only himself and the Republicans, and not all of us.

So I don't think this is a non issue at all. If you don't agree, go back and look at the Clinton use of this loophole, see what they payed in taxes; then compare it to Trump's.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Whatever Hillary might have done wrong is lost in the smoke being blown by conspiracy theorists. Why be mad at her? Shouldn't we be more angry with the people who investigated her? If Benghazi was such a crime, why can't these House investigations say so? If "bleaching" her emails was treason, shouldn't we be more upset with the FBI for letting her off?

A haze of stupidity has settled over this country. Maybe it started back in the 1980's when we decided we could pardon everyone involved in Iran-Contra, just as long as we made sure crack dealers did every decade in prison they had coming. Maybe it started when Ford pardoned Nixon. Then again, maybe it's always been this way.

I don't get the eyerolls because a lot of people agree with you... (and lots of them voting for Trump) Absolutely the FBI needs to be held accountable as well... that's why people are so upset about Comey... that's why so much of the FBI is in turmoil... that's why people say, "it's too deep" that's why Hillary hasn't and might never be indicted...it's all connected. It doesn't mean we don't have republican members of congress going after Comey and Clinton and everyone involved.
The emails, Benghazi, the weapons trading in Libya and the coverup of Libya seeking peaceful resolution before Clintons takedown of Gaddafi. All of these are the same scandal. That's "what difference" it makes. It's not about lying to families about a video... It's the extent of the issue they don't want anyone to look at.

That's why I said the clintons and the bush's are the same... that's why we have George H.W. Bush reportedly voting for Clinton. If one goes down they all go down. Bush and Clinton have Iran Contra connections as well. If we never see another member of either of these families in office it will be a step in the right direction.

That is why it is mind boggling bananas when people all of a sudden are like "what a great guy!" about Bush when that came out.

WHAAAATTTTTTT. People are so full of it.

Hillary hasn't been indicted because it would take down so many people with her. Including Obama and across both parties. No shit.
Clinton said his biggest regret was not running for the UN after his presidency(to focus on Hillster). Obama is likely running for the same job. The UN is shady the white house is shady and all these mofo's are shady. And every time Trump says it he's unamerican or "More shady"
Bull.

But related.... Eric Trump did a good job on CNN after the VP debate.

 

[Mila_]

One thing that I like about Trump is that he is so wealthy he doesn't need to be president. Actually, becoming president could only make his current situation worse. His children are running his company, he is semi-retired, wealthy, and has a big family. Becoming US president is only going to put a lot of stress on his back. So why is he doing this? The best explanation I can come up with is he is doing it for ego. Because he wants to have a long lasting legacy beyond what his company and family will give him. He wants to go down in history. If he is doing it for ego then he probably does want to make America great again because that will be the best legacy he can possibly have. For people to see a before and after picture and to know that the president responsible for that shift in prosperity was him. I don't really care about the taxes to be honest, because if I was in his position I would only pay the minimum I could get away with. I don't care about it one iota because it doesn't make him a better or worse candidate.

Hillary on the other hand... without politics she has nothing. She needs the presidency because every ounce of wealth the Clintons have has been the product of using their political power to their advantage, sometimes even fucking up the country in the process. For them, politics is a money making machine. Everything they have done since Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978 has been with the purpose of making money. The drug smuggling through the Mena Airport in tandem with George H W Bush, then they accepted contributions through figureheads from every enemy foreign country starting with Chinagate in 1996 and ending with Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation in 2016. They raised millions for Haiti after the earthquake through the Clinton Foundation that nobody ever saw. Hillary basically auctioned her meeting timeslots when she was Secretary of State. They assigned every embassy to the highest bidder, everything about them is dirty money. I cannot trust that a person like this has any good intentions with the country, or will do anything good for the american people. And while I do believe in some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton/Bushes... because you have to admit some of those deaths surrounding them have been incredibly suspicious... that is not the main reason I don't want to see her as President of the US. The more I read about the Clintons the more disgusted I am that there have been no consequences for their crimes. I can't believe they are letting her run.

This is an election between a candidate that has never been into politics, loves taking risks, and has a massive ego, and a candidate who has contributed with terrorists, drug cartels, abused and intimidated people, took money from foreign leaders and did their bidding, stole millions from poor people and 3rd world countries, and possibly ordered the assassination of a few of her closest friends. While the first person has no experience and is a risk we are taking, at least there is a chance that he might do good, that his heart is in the right place. The second person is not a risk, we know what we will get if Hillary wins. We will get more abuse, more shady deals cut in back rooms, more selling out the country to the highest bidder, more impunity and less justice.

 

[Osmia]

For more on the fiduciary angle, skip to 15:25 of this video. Very telling.
. . . .

Here's a good article about the fiduciary issue. http://time.com/4516100/donald-trump-taxes-fiduciary-duty/

The bottom line, as far as I can tell, based on what I've read, IANAL etc. etc. is that it was probably legal for him to use that huge loss to avoid tax liability in the succeeding years. The tax code has some loopholes and favorable provisions for real estate developers, and he was just taking advantage of what the law allowed.

There are still two problems that I can see:

• The fact that these loopholes exist. It's unfair and promotes cynicism among normal, wage-earning taxpayers.
• This very limited disclosure raises a lot of questions about Trump's business acumen and ethics, but those questions can't be definitively answered until and unless there are additional leaks or a government agency investigates Trump's businesses and income.

Regardless of what else turns up on his taxes, I doubt it would make any difference to Trump's supporters, who simply don't hold him accountable for any bad behavior. It's as if they don't really see Trump as a human being with moral agency and responsibility; he's more of a symbol or vehicle for their anger and resentment.

 

[JoleneBrody]

One thing that I like about Trump is that he is so wealthy he doesn't need to be president. Actually, becoming president could only make his current situation worse. His children are running his company, he is semi-retired, wealthy, and has a big family. Becoming US president is only going to put a lot of stress on his back. So why is he doing this? The best explanation I can come up with is he is doing it for ego. Because he wants to have a long lasting legacy beyond what his company and family will give him. He wants to go down in history. If he is doing it for ego then he probably does want to make America great again because that will be the best legacy he can possibly have. For people to see a before and after picture and to know that the president responsible for that shift in prosperity was him. I don't really care about the taxes to be honest, because if I was in his position I would only pay the minimum I could get away with. I don't care about it one iota because it doesn't make him a better or worse candidate.

Hillary on the other hand... without politics she has nothing. She needs the presidency because every ounce of wealth the Clintons have has been the product of using their political power to their advantage, sometimes even fucking up the country in the process. For them, politics is a money making machine. Everything they have done since Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978 has been with the purpose of making money. The drug smuggling through the Mena Airport in tandem with George H W Bush, then they accepted contributions through figureheads from every enemy foreign country starting with Chinagate in 1996 and ending with Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation in 2016. They raised millions for Haiti after the earthquake through the Clinton Foundation that nobody ever saw. Hillary basically auctioned her meeting timeslots when she was Secretary of State. They assigned every embassy to the highest bidder, everything about them is dirty money. I cannot trust that a person like this has any good intentions with the country, or will do anything good for the american people. And while I do believe in some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton/Bushes... because you have to admit some of those deaths surrounding them have been incredibly suspicious... that is not the main reason I don't want to see her as President of the US. The more I read about the Clintons the more disgusted I am that there have been no consequences for their crimes. I can't believe they are letting her run.

This is an election between a candidate that has never been into politics, loves taking risks, and has a massive ego, and a candidate who has contributed with terrorists, drug cartels, abused and intimidated people, took money from foreign leaders and did their bidding, stole millions from poor people and 3rd world countries, and possibly ordered the assassination of a few of her closest friends. While the first person has no experience and is a risk we are taking, at least there is a chance that he might do good, that his heart is in the right place. The second person is not a risk, we know what we will get if Hillary wins. We will get more abuse, more shady deals cut in back rooms, more selling out the country to the highest bidder, more impunity and less justice.

I'm confused as to why you don't list all of the questionable practices of trump in your last statement as well along side? "massive ego" is the most damning thing you could say? /quote

Again, as I've said before, the argument of crazy vs. corrupt makes no sense because trump is also VERY corrupt and has a laundry list of lawsuits and very very shitty shady business dealings... some even teetering on treason. A terrible record of inhumane treatment, brutal rape accusations and blatant shitting on the working class for personal gain. These things happened or have been accused of happening and nothing any Trump supporter says can take that reality away.

Let's be honest here. Our choice is a shitty corrupt businessman reality TV star and a shitty corrupt life long politician. Both have done some good things in their lives and both have done some really really really bad things in their lives, we now have to choose which giant piece of dishonest human garbage can best represent this country on a global scale and at least not make Americans look worse than they already do

To me that choice is clear but I make that choice based on the reality we face not the fictitious world of saviors and gods.

If Trump wasn't such a piece of shit Hillary wouldn't have a chance, and vice versa. What a joke.

 

[Osmia]

I don't get the eyerolls because a lot of people agree with you... (and lots of them voting for Trump) Absolutely the FBI needs to be held accountable as well... that's why people are so upset about Comey... that's why so much of the FBI is in turmoil... that's why people say, "it's too deep"

Do you have a source for this? (FBI//Comey)

If we never see another member of either of these families in office it will be a step in the right direction.

ITA (after Hillary serves her term(s), lol). There should be a constitutional prohibition on first degree relatives serving as president.

 

[Bocefish]

If you think good street cops don't stop and frisk known gangbangers on a somewhat regular basis, think again. Good street cops are a rare breed and need a law in their favor. Then again, my mentality may simply be a symptom of the decay of society, law, and morality as a whole.

just because you think it's ok doesn't make it constitutional.

Please pardon my previous late night tongue-in-cheek response, but I thought people were aware that stop-and-frisk is indeed constitutional.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/

I guess if politicians repeat their lies enough times, people will eventually believe it.

ETA: It's partially my bad for not being more specific in the first place, but hopefully, we all learned something in the process.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I don't get the eyerolls because a lot of people agree with you... (and lots of them voting for Trump)

The eyeroll is because I used BleachBit myself, until it wrecked my Ubuntu install. Listening to that dishonest-heap-o'-ignorance-b'neath-a-bouffant croak about "crooked Hillary bleached her emails!" was a massive eyeroll moment.

Absolutely the FBI needs to be held accountable as well... that's why people are so upset about Comey... that's why so much of the FBI is in turmoil... that's why people say, "it's too deep" that's why Hillary hasn't and might never be indicted...it's all connected. It doesn't mean we don't have republican members of congress going after Comey and Clinton and everyone involved.
The emails, Benghazi, the weapons trading in Libya and the coverup of Libya seeking peaceful resolution before Clintons takedown of Gaddafi. All of these are the same scandal. That's "what difference" it makes. It's not about lying to families about a video... It's the extent of the issue they don't want anyone to look at.

This is bullshit. I say this as someone who used to buy into all this bullshit.

What happens if these Republicans in Congress, supposedly pulling the thread of "truth", realize they are unravelling their own sweater? Why, then it will be pardons and commutations for all, while the little people are urged to stand there awash in emotion over their service and the brave sacrifices they have had to make in the war against that evil Islam.

See, I was upset as hell about this during the Bill Clinton administration. I wanted justice and investigations then. And what did the people who encouraged my anger give me? A lame-assed blowjob impeachment. W's administration. More war, more crackpot "worship the wealthy" economic policies, more lies, more conspiracy theories, more kookery of every description.

Utter bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Eat until you are full.

That's why I said the clintons and the bush's are the same... that's why we have George H.W. Bush reportedly voting for Clinton. If one goes down they all go down. Bush and Clinton have Iran Contra connections as well. If we never see another member of either of these families in office it will be a step in the right direction.

I agree with some of this. Not about G. H. W.'s vote though. I don't think he is worried about himself and the Clintons going down. I think he is worried because Trump may be about to discredit the entire government. Unless @JerryBoBerry is right and he quickly gets impeached. Or, as Jesse Ventura speculates, he just gets assassinated.

But related.... Eric Trump did a good job on CNN after the VP debate.

A good job at what? Furiously shovelling more bullshit to the crowd who clamors for it?

It is good you like Prince Eric. You may be about to see a lot more of him.

One thing that I like about Trump is that he is so wealthy he doesn't need to be president. Actually, becoming president could only make his current situation worse. His children are running his company, he is semi-retired, wealthy, and has a big family. Becoming US president is only going to put a lot of stress on his back. So why is he doing this? The best explanation I can come up with is he is doing it for ego. Because he wants to have a long lasting legacy beyond what his company and family will give him. He wants to go down in history. If he is doing it for ego then he probably does want to make America great again because that will be the best legacy he can possibly have. For people to see a before and after picture and to know that the president responsible for that shift in prosperity was him. I don't really care about the taxes to be honest, because if I was in his position I would only pay the minimum I could get away with. I don't care about it one iota because it doesn't make him a better or worse candidate.

Hillary on the other hand... without politics she has nothing. She needs the presidency because every ounce of wealth the Clintons have has been the product of using their political power to their advantage, sometimes even fucking up the country in the process. For them, politics is a money making machine. Everything they have done since Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978 has been with the purpose of making money. The drug smuggling through the Mena Airport in tandem with George H W Bush, then they accepted contributions through figureheads from every enemy foreign country starting with Chinagate in 1996 and ending with Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation in 2016. They raised millions for Haiti after the earthquake through the Clinton Foundation that nobody ever saw. Hillary basically auctioned her meeting timeslots when she was Secretary of State. They assigned every embassy to the highest bidder, everything about them is dirty money. I cannot trust that a person like this has any good intentions with the country, or will do anything good for the american people. And while I do believe in some of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton/Bushes... because you have to admit some of those deaths surrounding them have been incredibly suspicious... that is not the main reason I don't want to see her as President of the US. The more I read about the Clintons the more disgusted I am that there have been no consequences for their crimes. I can't believe they are letting her run.

This is an election between a candidate that has never been into politics, loves taking risks, and has a massive ego, and a candidate who has contributed with terrorists, drug cartels, abused and intimidated people, took money from foreign leaders and did their bidding, stole millions from poor people and 3rd world countries, and possibly ordered the assassination of a few of her closest friends. While the first person has no experience and is a risk we are taking, at least there is a chance that he might do good, that his heart is in the right place. The second person is not a risk, we know what we will get if Hillary wins. We will get more abuse, more shady deals cut in back rooms, more selling out the country to the highest bidder, more impunity and less justice.

I love to read @Kitsune posts and wonder, is she just a propagandist, or does she really believe these things? (I don't really want to know, that would take all the fun out of it; I like her better as a delightful mystery)

I am no Clinton fan, I am not happy with things I view as criminal done by our government; but if I ever wake up, and find that I am whitewashing Donald Trump, I will know for certain I have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

That said, if his dumb ass is within striking distance come election day, I will happily stand shoulder to shoulder with @Kitsune and cast my ballot as she intends to, for Trump. After all, this is America. We do it bigger, we do it better; if government means lies, and corruption, and a complete lack of integrity, then I say we show the rest of the world how it's done.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Please pardon my previous late night tongue-in-cheek response, but I thought people were aware that stop-and-frisk is indeed constitutional.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/

I guess if politicians repeat their lies enough times, people will eventually believe it.

ETA: It's partially my bad for not being more specific in the first place, but hopefully, we all learned something in the process.

Well search with probable cause has always and will always be constitutional and I think anyone who understands their right under any name should know that, the point was that the specific practice as it was being carried out in NYC was... so using it as an example of how things should be done is pretty dumb.

Stopping and searching with actual probable cause is done daily, constitutionally. The specific name "Stop and Frisk" has been pretty widely accredited to the very specific controversy in NYC, which was not being carried out constitutionally... thus the controversy.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Well search with probable cause has always and will always be constitutional and I think anyone who understands their right under any name should know that, the point was that the specific practice as it was being carried out in NYC was... so using it as an example of how things should be done is pretty dumb.

Stopping and searching with actual probable cause is done daily, constitutionally. The specific name "Stop and Frisk" has been pretty widely accredited to the very specific controversy in NYC, which was not being carried out constitutionally... thus the controversy.

Damn too late to edit... my point being if we were playing tennis I'm pretty sure the ball is just resting on the net. Lol