Vote for President

[chfo]

View attachment 206866 I forgot about this gem

Your "logic" is that ebola infected people get a gold card for entry so they can expose everyone else to harm just because they worked internationally?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

1.) I don't think you have much evidence that Trump doesn't care about Christianity. It's a binary choice from a logical standpoint, so there shouldn't be any explanation needed given the Supreme Court positions up for grabs as to why someone as a Christian would vote for Trump. Here is an article from Politico yesterday: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-christian-leaders-226075

2.) I don't understand how Chris Matthews is a far left pundit who is pro-choice but a staunch Catholic either, but in this great country of ours we have separation of church and state and many people seem to separate their personal beliefs from their governmental beliefs. Some don't. Not that large republics/democracies like the United States even existed in Jesus' time. Really not an appropriate assumption. I can assure you there was not enough democracy in Jesus' time for him to give us his particular political beliefs. Taking care of your own and buying into promoting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would seem like a goal Jesus would have.

1) I read the article, thinking it would give some good Christian philosophical explanations. I didn't really see any. There was the SCOTUS appt mentioned, and the religious freedom restoration act. But those are both political motives that don't speak at all to Christian philosophy. I get that Trump would be more likely to appoint a pro-life judge in terms of abortion. That's a very valid reason. But there are many of his positions that are not compatible with life that they don't address. Killing families of terrorists. Closing immigration and deporting people who will starve or die via violence. That's a reasonable debate to have.
And this gold nugget with regards to Trump:
ANNENFELSER: "There is something attractive about the fact he understands the consequences of positions he takes …he’s not afraid to make mistakes, he’s also not afraid to admit when he’s wrong."
Yes, if anything defines Trump, it's his wonderfully and mature way of accepting when he's wrong!

2) Theres a pretty big gap in the US between Catholics and conservative Protestants on social and economic issues, with Chris Matthews being what I think is a pretty good representation of the catholic side. But I absolutely accept your point. There are probably "Christian" reasons for being pro-choice, but there is without question a powerful and compelling reason for Christians to be against choice if they believe life starts at conception.

I don't know about the separation stuff. It's another argument that I don't feel like having right now, but if someone can set aside their core beliefs (that most religious people would say defines who they are as a person), then how strong are their core beliefs really?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

On the one hand, you say wrong or right are subjective to you. But on the other hand, you judge Christians for being hypocrites according to your self-confessed subjective standards of right or wrong.

On the one hand, you agree you don't believe there's a monolithic answer. But on the other hand, you broadbrush and make generalisations about Christians.

On the first paragraph, you're right! I don't deny what you say at all. I'm not religious, and have my own reasons for deciding "right" and "wrong".

In your second paragraph, I'm not sure of the connection. I think lots of Christians have lots of reasons for being ok with Trump and his positions against needy people. The monolithic stuff in my "broadbrush" I'm not sure about. I do believe Jesus was about love, acceptance, and servitude, and Christians are supposedly compelled to follow those ideals among others. I'm surprised if that's controversial.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And besides pretentious liberal elites aren't confined to the East coast.

No, but that's where the pretentious elites built their universities to teach and spread their liberal ideas.
Also, it should a be a surprise that liberals, pretentious or not, elite or not, would favor Hillary Clinton. They tend to vote democrat.
Also, while "pretentious" is debatable (although Ben Franklin apparently knew he was the sh1t), the founding fathers of the US were for the most part liberal, and without question elite. Not a bad crowd!

 

[Ignatius J]

1) I read the article, thinking it would give some good Christian philosophical explanations. I didn't really see any. There was the SCOTUS appt mentioned, and the religious freedom restoration act. But those are both political motives that don't speak at all to Christian philosophy. I get that Trump would be more likely to appoint a pro-life judge in terms of abortion. That's a very valid reason. But there are many of his positions that are not compatible with life that they don't address. Killing families of terrorists. Closing immigration and deporting people who will starve or die via violence. That's a reasonable debate to have.
And this gold nugget with regards to Trump:
ANNENFELSER: "There is something attractive about the fact he understands the consequences of positions he takes …he’s not afraid to make mistakes, he’s also not afraid to admit when he’s wrong."
Yes, if anything defines Trump, it's his wonderfully and mature way of accepting when he's wrong!

2) Theres a pretty big gap in the US between Catholics and conservative Protestants on social and economic issues, with Chris Matthews being what I think is a pretty good representation of the catholic side. But I absolutely accept your point. There are probably "Christian" reasons for being pro-choice, but there is without question a powerful and compelling reason for Christians to be against choice if they believe life starts at conception.

I don't know about the separation stuff. It's another argument that I don't feel like having right now, but if someone can set aside their core beliefs (that most religious people would say defines who they are as a person), then how strong are their core beliefs really?

There are lots of topics for sure worthy of discussion. I also think "killing families of terrorists" and "deporting people who will die" is too simplistic. Almost any policy any politician makes is intended to be a net positive, though people may disagree on whether it actually is. For example, saying he is "deporting people who will be die" can be seen as "getting rid of people breaking the law and protecting Americans that have been harmed by undocumented illegal immigrants". A lot of families of victims would have a hard time seeing it in the light that you describe. Would you tell Kate Steinle's family that Trump's policy is just "deporting people who will die"? They may slap you in the face with their daughter 6 feet under the ground because the lax SF laws allowed him to be there. It is all relative.

 

[Doctor4Life1769]

Please no one feed the troll. People have a hard time ignoring dumb statements, when it's really not necessary to respond

Calling it as it is makes it trolling now?

DNC calling Mexicans taco bowls is just not a big deal either

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Yes, he has been successful in the private sector for 40 years now in a cutt-throat industry. In a day and age when the average S&P corporation exists for 13 years, that is pretty impressive. He has seen politics from the "other side" and is not in Big Money's back pocket line Clinton.

Also, he isn't Hillary. See: the Encylcopedia of Corruption and Cronyism.

Global debut of Clinton Cash last night- take a look!

By the way, he never went bankrupt. That is an overplayed, ignorant statement. A venture within his conglomerate did. And he restructured a great deal for himself.

I'm confused. Trump gets the credit for his business but none of the blame when his business has a little trouble like chapter 11 bankruptcy? I want Trump to be held to the same standard as Trump.

 

[Ignatius J]

I'm confused. Trump gets the credit for his business but none of the blame when his business has a little trouble like chapter 11 bankruptcy? I want Trump to be held to the same standard as Trump.

That was an aggressive endeavor within Trump's conglomerate that filed for bankruptcy. Sure, you can criticize him. I liked Crystal Pepsi when I was growing up but some things just don't work out. Many corporations have to close up shop on their projects. Apple TV was suppose to be cool. Nevertheless, taking one business or product within the whole Trump Organization when he has immensely successful projects all over the globe is not a genuine argument, IMO.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

There are lots of topics for sure worthy of discussion. I also think "killing families of terrorists" and "deporting people who will die" is too simplistic. Almost any policy any politician makes is intended to be a net positive, though people may disagree on whether it actually is. For example, saying he is "deporting people who will be die" can be seen as "getting rid of people breaking the law and protecting Americans that have been harmed by undocumented illegal immigrants". A lot of families of victims would have a hard time seeing it in the light that you describe. Would you tell Kate Steinle's family that Trump's policy is just "deporting people who will die"? They may slap you in the face with their daughter 6 feet under the ground because the lax SF laws allowed him to be there. It is all relative.

I get what you're saying about the different spin, but we were talking about Christianity and Jesus's teachings. I don't think Jesus would care about laws and documentation status. In fact in pretty sure of that.

Any felon who's undocumented should be immediately deported to the hands of his country's authorities. I don't get how that bullsh1t is allowed to happen.

But we know all know the data on undocumented citizens and crime. In general they avoid trouble and the authorities like the plague.

 

[ProfMD]

That was an aggressive endeavor within Trump's conglomerate that filed for bankruptcy. Sure, you can criticize him. I liked Crystal Pepsi when I was growing up but some things just don't work out. Many corporations have to close up shop on their projects. Apple TV was suppose to be cool. Nevertheless, taking one business or product within the whole Trump Organization when he has immensely successful projects all over the globe is not a genuine argument, IMO.

Certainly seems like more than an "aggressive endeavor." Not necessarily all Trump's fault but also not really encouraging for someone who claims to be a business genius.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

Crystal Pepsi never lead PepsiCo to file for bankruptcy. You may not like it, but Apple TV is still a thing and last I checked Apple is not filing for bankruptcy either.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

.

 

[Ignatius J]

Certainly seems like more than an "aggressive endeavor." Not necessarily all Trump's fault but also not really encouraging for someone who claims to be a business genius.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

Crystal Pepai never lead PepsiCo to file for bankruptcy. You may not like it, but Apple TV is still a thing and last I checked Apple is not filing for bankruptcy either.

The Trump Organization and Donald Trump has never filed for bankruptcy either. Trump has had over 150 business ventures under one conglomerate. Every venture carries risk and some, many, will not work out. He did what he could, restructured debt, and got out of the deal at little costs to his personal or brand worth and continued on.

 

[Ignatius J]

I get what you're saying about the different spin, but we were talking about Christianity and Jesus's teachings. I don't think Jesus would care about laws and documentation status. In fact in pretty sure of that.

Any felon who's undocumented should be immediately deported to the hands of his country's authorities. I don't get how that bullsh1t is allowed to happen.

But we know all know the data on undocumented citizens and crime. In general they avoid trouble and the authorities like the plague.

It's a different day and age than Jesus of Nazareth's time so the comparison is just off. Jesus probably wouldn't care about social constructs, taxes, sports, and other material things that we engage in every day. But alas, this is America founded on laws, values, and principles and we have a culture that we do. He can tell us what we should have done when we get to the pearly gates.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

It's a different day and age than Jesus of Nazareth's time so the comparison is just off. Jesus probably wouldn't care about social constructs, taxes, sports, and other material things that we engage in every day. But alas, this is America founded on laws, values, and principles and we have a culture that we do. He can tell us what we should have done when we get to the pearly gates.

I wasn't really "comparing" times, but I do like your argument. I'm an atheist, but I figure if when I die I find out the Christians were the right ones, I'll just explain things thusly.

 

[bashwell]

On the first paragraph, you're right! I don't deny what you say at all. I'm not religious, and have my own reasons for deciding "right" and "wrong".

In your second paragraph, I'm not sure of the connection. I think lots of Christians have lots of reasons for being ok with Trump and his positions against needy people. The monolithic stuff in my "broadbrush" I'm not sure about. I do believe Jesus was about love, acceptance, and servitude, and Christians are supposedly compelled to follow those ideals among others. I'm surprised if that's controversial.

My main point here was just that you're treating a group of people (Christians) as if they all have the same or similar reasons for voting for Trump. I don't think they do. I think some might have good reasons for voting for Trump, some have bad reasons, some have mixed reasons, etc. Just like many other groups.

For example, maybe some Christians didn't want to vote for Trump, but now that he's the only viable choice for them because they think Hillary is worse, hence they grudgingly vote for Trump, despite the fact that he stands for much that is against their beliefs and values. He's "the lesser of two evils" for them. They feel they have no other realistic choice. I don't necessarily agree with this rationale, I'm just using it as an example for how some Christians might justify voting for Trump without being hypocrites.

Another example is some Christians (like many other groups) might be ignorant about Trump and think he's honestly fighting for good values despite his hotheaded rhetoric. That makes them ignorant, but it doesn't make them hypocrites.

Again, I think you're jumping to conclusions or oversimplifying when you immediately broadbrush all Christians as hypocrites for voting for Trump. Some may be hypocrites, but that doesn't necessarily mean all are hypocrites for voting for Trump. And again similar things could be said for other groups as well.

No, but that's where the pretentious elites built their universities to teach and spread their liberal ideas.

Lots of universities that pretentious liberal elites teach and work at that aren't solely on the East Coast. For example, there are lots of universities that pretentious liberal elites teach at on the West Coast.

Also, it should a be a surprise that liberals, pretentious or not, elite or not, would favor Hillary Clinton. They tend to vote democrat.
Also, while "pretentious" is debatable (although Ben Franklin apparently knew he was the sh1t), the founding fathers of the US were for the most part liberal, and without question elite. Not a bad crowd!

You're equivocating because terms like "liberal" and "elite" had different meanings in c. 1776 vs. today. It's anachronistic to read the modern meaning of "liberal" into what it meant in c. 1776. Otherwise one could argue the Founding Fathers were ultra conservatives!

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Your "logic" is that ebola infected people get a gold card for entry so they can expose everyone else to harm just because they worked internationally?

I'll answer you this time because this is a pretty good example of how dumb your guy is.
This tweet would require that Trump believe one of two equally dumb things:
1) 'The argument is about people with Ebola coming into the US".
It wasn't. It was about workers in countries with Ebola, or caregivers taking care of people with Ebola. No one in there right mind was arguing that people with Ebola should be let loose in the general society. That is a very superficial and stupid understanding of the debate if that's what he thought.

Or
2) "Everyone coming from countries with Ebola or taking care of someone with Ebola must have Ebola".
This wouldn't surprise me either. He makes facts up based on how he "feels"; much like undocumented immigrants being mostly rapists and murderers. So why wouldn't he think all people in countries with Ebola outbreaks have Ebola (despite the transmission rate being very low).
Never mind the fact that the people effected by this idiocy would be extremely charitable healthcare workers. But (supposed) billionaires living in penthouses have a right to sh1t in humanitarians if they want. They just shouldn't get people's support for president.

That's all I have to say about that one. I ignore the rest of your posts because they're godawful ridiculous.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

My main point here was just that you're treating a group of people (Christians) as if they all have the same or similar reasons for voting for Trump. I don't think they do. I think some might have good reasons for voting for Trump, some have bad reasons, some have mixed reasons, etc. Just like many other groups.

For example, maybe some Christians didn't want to vote for Trump, but now that he's the only viable choice for them because they think Hillary is worse, hence they grudgingly vote for Trump, despite the fact that he stands for much that is against their beliefs and values. He's "the lesser of two evils" for them. They feel they have no other realistic choice. I don't necessarily agree with this rationale, I'm just using it as an example for how some Christians might justify voting for Trump without being hypocrites.

Another example is some Christians (like many other groups) might be ignorant about Trump and think he's honestly fighting for good values despite his hotheaded rhetoric. That makes them ignorant, but it doesn't make them hypocrites.

Again, I think you're jumping to conclusions or oversimplifying when you immediately broadbrush all Christians as hypocrites for voting for Trump. Some may be hypocrites, but that doesn't necessarily mean all are hypocrites for voting for Trump. And again similar things could be said for other groups as well.

Like I said, I agree they have various reasons. I'd like to hear them. I suspect I will think most of them, like jobs or tax breaks, or some nationalistic buzzword, will not provide good defenses for the anti-Christian position of turning away the needy in VERY large numbers. But like I said earlier, I know they're not ALL hypocrites in this particular subject.

Lots of universities that pretentious liberal elites teach and work at that aren't solely on the East Coast. For example, there are lots of universities that pretentious liberal elites teach at on the West Coast.

Oh I don't disagree. But when you want to disparage liberals or democrats in the US the phrase is "east-coast liberal elites" because that's apparently most offensive. I think every other pretentious liberal elite can be said to have inherited the east-coaster's legacy.

You're equivocating because terms like "liberal" and "elite" had different meanings in c. 1776 vs. today. It's anachronistic to read the modern meaning of "liberal" into what it meant in c. 1776. Otherwise one could argue the Founding Fathers were ultra conservatives!

Huh? Why in god's name would I be using "liberal" or "elite" as they meant in 1776?

 

[bashwell]

Like I said, I agree they have various reasons. I'd like to hear them. I suspect I will think most of them, like jobs or tax breaks, or some nationalistic buzzword, will not provide good defenses for the anti-Christian position of turning away the needy in VERY large numbers. But like I said earlier, I know they're not ALL hypocrites in this particular subject.

Originally you did paint all or (as you said) "the VAST majority" of Christians with a broadbrush with regard to Trump (see above). Good that's no longer the case.

Oh I don't disagree. But when you want to disparage liberals or democrats in the US the phrase is "east-coast liberal elites" because that's apparently most offensive. I think every other pretentious liberal elite can be said to have inherited the east-coaster's legacy.

Now you're just disparaging the East coast!

Huh? Why in god's name would I be using "liberal" or "elite" as they meant in 1776?

I don't know -- maybe you can tell me, because I'm just going off of what you said.

 

[HalO'Thane]

The Trump Organization and Donald Trump has never filed for bankruptcy either. Trump has had over 150 business ventures under one conglomerate. Every venture carries risk and some, many, will not work out. He did what he could, restructured debt, and got out of the deal at little costs to his personal or brand worth and continued on.

Four bankruptcies in 25 years is a lot; no matter how much you spin it. His career is littered with reckless, poorly thought out business decision that can't by explained away by bad luck or economic cycles: Trump Airlines, Trump University, Taj Mahal Hotels, Trump Casinos, and the USFL. In addition, he has made a career out of screwing over small business owners who he has contracted with and his customers, such as those enrolled in Trump University who were advised to drain their 401K's. He pays his sub-contractors pennies on the dollar because he knows that he can get away with it since they don't have the financial means to fight him in an extended court battle. This is why I am so baffled that so many lower income voters support him just because he calls himself a "Blue Collar Billionaire" and speaks with the vocabulary of a 4th grader. Ultimately, we will never know how successful he is because he refuses to release his tax returns over the past 10 years; the first candidate in recent memory not to do so. This is because he doesn't want the public to know that he is not as rich as he claims. He also doesn't want to divulge how he harbors his income in tax shelters and which shady investors have kept him afloat, both foreign and domestic. I am no fan of Hillary by any stretch of the imagination but Trump is a complete fraud and if he is elected it will go down as one of the greatest fleecings in US History.

 

[Ignatius J]

Four bankruptcies in 25 years is a lot; no matter how much you spin it. His career is littered with reckless, poorly thought out business decision that can't by explained away by bad luck or economic cycles: Trump Airlines, Trump University, Taj Mahal Hotels, Trump Casinos, and the USFL. In addition, he has made a career out of screwing over small business owners who he has contracted with and his customers, such as those enrolled in Trump University who were advised to drain their 401K's. He pays his sub-contractors pennies on the dollar because he knows that he can get away with it since they don't have the financial means to fight him in an extended court battle. This is why I am so baffled that so many lower income voters support him just because he calls himself a "Blue Collar Billionaire" and speaks with the vocabulary of a 4th grader. Ultimately, we will never know how successful he is because he refuses to release his tax returns over the past 10 years; the first candidate in recent memory not to do so. This is because he doesn't want the public to know that he is not as rich as he claims. He also doesn't want to divulge how he harbors his income in tax shelters and which shady investors have kept him afloat, both foreign and domestic. I am no fan of Hillary by any stretch of the imagination but Trump is a complete fraud and if he is elected it will go down as one of the greatest fleecings in US History.

"4 bankruptcies" is a convenient, details-less blanket statement. He has never personally filed for personal bankruptcy nor has the Trump Organization. He has been an extremely aggressive businessman and done everything he can to kickstart new enterprises and ventures. Where allowed, he has used laws to structure advantageous deals for himself. You don't get to where he is by consistently being "wreckless". It's time to put the "Trump has declared bankruptcy 4 times" narrative to rest. He has failed business ventures and many successful ones. Obviously, his successes have far outweighed the bankruptcies.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I'm guessing Trump is more of an Old Testament guy than a New Testament guy, so I guess it depends on what you think is more important. Not that he's that different than most Americans on that point.

It's a different day and age than Jesus of Nazareth's time so the comparison is just off. Jesus probably wouldn't care about social constructs, taxes, sports, and other material things that we engage in every day. But alas, this is America founded on laws, values, and principles and we have a culture that we do. He can tell us what we should have done when we get to the pearly gates.

Have you actually read the Bible? Jesus talks pretty explicitly about these things. But that's a topic for an entirely different thread.

 

[vector2]

I'm guessing Trump is more of an Old Testament guy than a New Testament guy, so I guess it depends on what you think is more important. Not that he's that different than most Americans on that point.



Have you actually read the Bible? Jesus talks pretty explicitly about these things. But that's a topic for an entirely different thread.

I'm pretty sure trump misread the phrase as render unto Caesar's Palace

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Originally you did paint all or (as you said) "the VAST majority" of Christians with a broadbrush with regard to Trump (see above). Good that's no longer the case.

Now you're just disparaging the East coast!

I don't know -- maybe you can tell me, because I'm just going off of what you said.

I'll agree, I AM painting them with a broad brush, however it's quantified! I won't argue that at all...
I think we're not on the same page in semantics on the other stuff... Not important though.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I don't know why Michael Brown's mom gets a stage at the DNC. I'm absolutely supportive of BLM, and he did not deserve to die. But he was a violent thief, and she apparently did a pretty terrible job raising him.

 

[Ignatius J]

I'm guessing Trump is more of an Old Testament guy than a New Testament guy, so I guess it depends on what you think is more important. Not that he's that different than most Americans on that point.



Have you actually read the Bible? Jesus talks pretty explicitly about these things. But that's a topic for an entirely different thread.

I think the Roman Empire tax collectors were a tad bit different back in those days. You are right though. Different conversation.

 

[chfo]

The DNC, the new Nazi party?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

A friend of mine put up this little Trump/Ivanka gif yesterday and I immediately said that it HAD to be doctored. Then he sent me this article.

This is lascivious stuff and I don't for a SECOND believe in any kind of incest there. When people talk incest because Trump says he'd date his daughter or because he mentions how great her body is, I argue that he is just VERY shallow, and looks and money are what he values.

I still believe that, but check out how weird that pat is. And he looked down so it was clearly intentional. I don't really care what this "body language" expert has to say. But there is some meaning in there somewhere. It's weird.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...-hugs-melania-ivanka-expert-weighs-in-w430543

 

[Pooh & Annie]

It weirded me out so much I had to figure it out and I think I did. I bet he's teasing her about her post-baby hips. It's awkward and astonishingly inappropriate considering the circumstances, but I'd bet money that's what it was.

 

[chfo]

It weirded me out so much I had to figure it out and I think I did. I bet he's teasing her about her post-baby hips. It's awkward and astonishingly inappropriate considering the circumstances, but I'd bet money that's what it was.

You're reaching harder than Bill Clinton reaching into an intern's panties.

 

[vector2]

Laura ingraham speaking at this year's rnc

 

[HalO'Thane]

"4 bankruptcies" is a convenient, details-less blanket statement. He has never personally filed for personal bankruptcy nor has the Trump Organization. He has been an extremely aggressive businessman and done everything he can to kickstart new enterprises and ventures. Where allowed, he has used laws to structure advantageous deals for himself. You don't get to where he is by consistently being "wreckless". It's time to put the "Trump has declared bankruptcy 4 times" narrative to rest. He has failed business ventures and many successful ones. Obviously, his successes have far outweighed the bankruptcies.

Of course he has never had to personally declare bankruptcy. Any businessman with a brain will know how to set up a company in such a way to protect their own personal assets from liabilities and losses. However, under his leadership these companies had incurred HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of losses that he was unable to recoup. Bankruptcy was his last resort. When pundits claim that he restructure these deals to his advantage they gloss over the fact that he screws over his investors, creditors, and clients in the process because he is not required to pay them back in full. This narrative is important because at 70 years old he has zero experience as an elected official and his entire fraudulent candidacy is based on his "success" as a businessman. He is an extremely overrated businessman. He inherited tens of millions of dollars from his father along with all of the NYC real estate connections that his family provided him with. This was in Manhattan in the 1970's before real estate prices skyrocketed. He could have placed that inheritance into a few buildings in Manhattan or a real estate company for someone more competent than him to run and he could have done absolutely nothing and still wound up with the same results. Of course we will never know how successful he is because he refuses to release his tax returns, the first candidate from either party to refuse to do so in the post Watergate era. That to me is actually the biggest red flag of his candidacy, more than these semantics of whether he declared bankruptcy 4 times. There is speculation that after his fourth bankruptcy it became increasingly difficult for him to find US banks to fund his projects. He has had to resort to investors abroad. He has also desperately been trying to establish projects in Russia. Now he has surrounded himself with advisers with close ties to Russia (Manafort), he is reversing 70 years of bipartisan policy towards Russia and NATO, and the Russian Government is actively undermining his opponent through cyber warfare. This is a conflict of interest between his business and political ventures that we have never seen before. How much about the DNC hacking did his people know ahead of time? How much money does he owe his investors and what policies will he put in place for their advantage? He can put a lot of this speculation to rest by releasing his tax returns but he won't.

Again, I am no fan of Hillary either. There are probably over 100 candidates who would have been more qualified than her. She will likely raise our taxes to fund wasteful spending, she will likely allow physician's reimbursements to be slashed even more, and I am diametrically opposed to her policies of regime change in Middle Eastern countries that have only served to destabilize the region even more. However, she at least has a foundation of knowledge, service, and experience to build upon. I have never viewed a candidate as a direct threat to our National Security until Trump.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Of course he has never had to personally declare bankruptcy. Any businessman with a brain will know how to set up a company in such a way to protect their own personal assets from liabilities and losses. However, under his leadership these companies had incurred HUNDREDS of millions of dollars of losses that he was unable to recoup. Bankruptcy was his last resort. When pundits claim that he restructure these deals to his advantage they gloss over the fact that he screws over his investors, creditors, and clients in the process because he is not required to pay them back in full. This narrative is important because at 70 years old he has zero experience as an elected official and his entire fraudulent candidacy is based on his "success" as a businessman. He is an extremely overrated businessman. He inherited tens of millions of dollars from his father along with all of the NYC real estate connections that his family provided him with. This was in Manhattan in the 1970's before real estate prices skyrocketed. He could have placed that inheritance into a few buildings in Manhattan or a real estate company for someone more competent than him to run and he could have done absolutely nothing and still wound up with the same results. Of course we will never know how successful he is because he refuses to release his tax returns, the first candidate from either party to refuse to do so in the post Watergate era. That to me is actually the biggest red flag of his candidacy, more than these semantics of whether he declared bankruptcy 4 times. There is speculation that after his fourth bankruptcy it became increasingly difficult for him to find US banks to fund his projects. He had to resort to investors abroad. He has also desperately been trying to establish projects in Russia. Now he has surrounded himself with advisers with close ties to Russia (Manafort), he is reversing 70 years of bipartisan policy towards Russia and NATO, and the Russian Government is actively undermining his opponent through cyber warfare. This is a conflict of interest between his business and political ventures that we have never seen before. How much about the DNC hacking did his people know ahead of time? How much money does he owe his investors and what policies will he put in place for their advantage? He can put a lot of this speculation to rest by releasing his tax returns but he won't.

Agree with all you wrote, but sorry to be picky - 6 bankruptcies

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nald-trumps-companies-have-declared-bankrupt/

 

[Ignatius J]

A friend of mine put up this little Trump/Ivanka gif yesterday and I immediately said that it HAD to be doctored. Then he sent me this article.

This is lascivious stuff and I don't for a SECOND believe in any kind of incest there. When people talk incest because Trump says he'd date his daughter or because he mentions how great her body is, I argue that he is just VERY shallow, and looks and money are what he values.

I still believe that, but check out how weird that pat is. And he looked down so it was clearly intentional. I don't really care what this "body language" expert has to say. But there is some meaning in there somewhere. It's weird.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...-hugs-melania-ivanka-expert-weighs-in-w430543

Let's focus on this. Hillary got a bribe to sell the Russians some US uranium but this seems very important.

 

[ProfMD]

Let's focus on this. Hillary got a bribe to sell the Russians some US uranium but this seems very important.

You mean this story?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ever...hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

Stupid on her part to even have the appearance of impropriety? Yes.

Criminal? Hardly. All evidence seems to suggest that even if she wanted to push the sale through, she would not have been able to do so on her own.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Let's focus on this. Hillary got a bribe to sell the Russians some US uranium but this seems very important.

No reason we have to talk about one thing.

 

[chfo]

You mean this story?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ever...hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

Stupid on her part to even have the appearance of impropriety? Yes.

Criminal? Hardly. All evidence seems to suggest that even if she wanted to push the sale through, she would not have been able to do so on her own.

Good thing "pattern of behavior" is the standard for prosecution for public corruption.

She's guilty.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

You mean this story?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ever...hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

Stupid on her part to even have the appearance of impropriety? Yes.

Criminal? Hardly. All evidence seems to suggest that even if she wanted to push the sale through, she would not have been able to do so on her own.

I never heard of this. But the folks involved were pretty clear that she wasn't in on it.
We'll see if it turns in to anything.

Lots of interesting politicking involving Russia! Somewhere, there's a super-scandal brewing...

 

[chfo]

Also dumb is including a self-professed child molester as a major DNC speaker:

The DNC is completely out-of-touch with America.

They've also had a rapist on stage, illegal aliens, drug addicts, mentally ill people, and alcoholics.

This is who the DNC is proud of?

 

[HalO'Thane]

Let's focus on this. Hillary got a bribe to sell the Russians some US uranium but this seems very important.

I have never seen a foreign adversary as powerful as Russia actively trying to influence our elections. Until Trump puts his money where his mouth is and releases his tax returns, something every candidate in modern history has done, he should be viewed as a National Security threat. I don't even feel comfortable with him receiving the security briefings that all candidates receive, much less the nuclear codes. This should not be a partisan issue. I cannot fathom why any Trump supporter is willing to look past this. Country over party; its that simple.

 

[Ignatius J]

I never heard of this. But the folks involved were pretty clear that she wasn't in on it.
We'll see if it turns in to anything.

Lots of interesting politicking involving Russia! Somewhere, there's a super-scandal brewing...

Never heard of this? This is most definitely true and a front-page New York Times story a year ago.

 

[Ignatius J]

I have never seen a foreign adversary as powerful as Russia actively trying to influence our elections. Until Trump puts his money where his mouth is and releases his tax returns, something every candidate in modern history has done, he should be viewed as a National Security threat. I don't even feel comfortable with him receiving the security briefings that all candidates receive, much less the nuclear codes. This should not be a partisan issue. I cannot fathom why any Trump supporter is willing to look past this. Country over party; its that simple.

Sure. As soon as Hillary releases her Wall Street transcripts.

The press is essentially asking for ammunition. Trump is a billionaire from the private sector and will have all sorts of tricky accounting going on that would be scrutinized.

Why would be release them? That makes no sense from a strategic standpoint.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Never heard of this? This is most definitely true and a front-page New York Times story a year ago.

You're right I forgot about this one. It's a 2/10, just like it was last year.

I wonder why Putin would hate her so much if he felt she were for sale...

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Sure. As soon as Hillary releases her Wall Street transcripts.

The press is essentially asking for ammunition. Trump is a billionaire from the private sector and will have all sorts of tricky accounting going on that would be scrutinized.

Why would be release them? That makes no sense from a strategic standpoint.

"Tricky accounting" doesn't do justice to the bombshells he's probably hiding. I absolutely agree that it doesn't make sense from a strategic standpoint. But by not demanding it, his followers are potentially putting us all in a lot of danger.

 

[Ignatius J]

You're right I forgot about this one. It's a 2/10, just like it was last year.

I wonder why Putin would hate her so much if he felt she were for sale...

It's not a 2/10. That would be willful ignorance. She essentially got a bribe through the Clinton Foundation from a company selling US uranium rights to Russia for a profit. Not only that, but she "forgot" to disclose the donation even though she was pledged to. It is blatant cronyism and corruption. The facts are all there and are hard to dispute. Like everything else though, we will whistle past the graveyard and pretend everyone is out to get ol' Hillary Clinton. Poor woman.

 

[Ignatius J]

"Tricky accounting" doesn't do justice to the bombshells he's probably hiding. I absolutely agree that it doesn't make sense from a strategic standpoint. But by not demanding it, his followers are potentially putting us all in a lot of danger.

He is being audited by the IRS, so I am pretty sure they are the ones who will decide whether these "bombshells" are legal or illegal. Not the public. Again, it makes no sense being a billionaire releasing your taxes. No good can come of it for him.

 

[ProfMD]

It's not a 2/10. That would be willful ignorance. She essentially got a bribe through the Clinton Foundation from a company selling US uranium rights to Russia for a profit. Not only that, but she "forgot" to disclose the donation even though she was pledged to. It is blatant cronyism and corruption. The facts are all there and are hard to dispute. Like everything else though, we will whistle past the graveyard and pretend everyone is out to get ol' Hillary Clinton. Poor woman.

Did you look at the link I posted above? She was one member of a large committee that decided if the rights could be sold. People on the inside said she did not participate much in the discussions.

Was it stupid to have this appearance of impropriety? Absolutely. Should she have disclosed the donation like she promised to? Yes. Is it I big scandal? Underwhelming.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Sure. As soon as Hillary releases her Wall Street transcripts.

The press is essentially asking for ammunition. Trump is a billionaire from the private sector and will have all sorts of tricky accounting going on that would be scrutinized.

Why would be release them? That makes no sense from a strategic standpoint.

You're an educated person who presumably has an intellectual curiosity. Why aren't you bothered that he hasn't released them? Have you made your mind up that's it's an impossibility that he may have very problematic relationships or financial dealings here or abroad?

I understand his base, who are not well educated, having blind faith. But you've GOT to have some questions?!

 

[Onefellswoop87]

He is being audited by the IRS, so I am pretty sure they are the ones who will decide whether these "bombshells" are legal or illegal. Not the public. Again, it makes no sense being a billionaire releasing your taxes. No good can come of it for him.

Except for keeping his word. He promised to do so. If he wants to appear to be more honest and trustworthy than "Crooked Hillary" then keeping his word is a nice place to start

 

[Ignatius J]

You're an educated person who presumably has an intellectual curiosity. Why aren't you bothered that he hasn't released them? Have you made your mind up that's it's an impossibility that he may have very problematic relationships or financial dealings here or abroad?

I understand his base, who are not well educated, having blind faith. But you've GOT to have some questions?!

First off, hold up man. His tax returns will have hardly any disclosure about his financial dealings. It will simply disclose personal income gains he has made throughout the year off his assets. It's a personal income tax return, not a peak into the Trump Organization.

Second off, I know what it has. It has loophole after loophole so he can pay as little taxes as possible. Possibly not a lot of philanthropic dealings as well.

 

[Ignatius J]

Except for keeping his word. He promised to do so. If he wants to appear to be more honest and trustworthy than "Crooked Hillary" then keeping his word is a nice place to start

This is a stupid, fluffed up trap. Look what happened to Bernie Sanders. He took the bait and got hammered for it.

 

[Ignatius J]

Did you look at the link I posted above? She was one member of a large committee that decided if the rights could be sold. People on the inside said she did not participate much in the discussions.

Was it stupid to have this appearance of impropriety? Absolutely. Should she have disclosed the donation like she promised to? Yes. Is it I big scandal? Underwhelming.

She was the Secretary of State, dude. She had the authority on this committee that had veto rights. She also had plenty of influence over the oversight of it all. She's the freaking Secretary of State, man. Supposing this excuse were even true, does that bother you that our Secretary of State apparently had almost zero involvement in selling a large bulk of our nuclear resources to our former Cold War enemy? Isn't that a problem? Well, yes it is, a big one. But that isn't true anyways so it doesn't matter. It's just as illogical as it is inconceivable.

It is completely silly to think that the CEO of this uranium company just randomly made a donation to the Clinton Foundation at the same time he stands to gain a huge profit right as Hillary Clinton as potential president (prior to being the Secretary) and as Secretary of State had the veto authority. Occam's razor, man. You are a smart guy. This isn't rocket science. Why do you think this wasn't disclosed? Do you regularly get multi-million dollar checks that you forget about?

At the very least, and we can all agree on this, she was the Secretary of State when the US was responsible for selling 20% of our uranium resources to our embittered enemy. Think about that for a second. She was complicit in selling uranium to Putin and also got a cut of the profit for it in the donation. This much we know. Whether she "knew" about all this is a debate. That it happened is not.