2016 US Election

[rat200Turbo]

Raver: He is lowering the tax rate on the lower class to 0 percent. You can read the plan here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan The money they give in is minimal anyway. The numbers in your chart are wrong also: A person with an income of 100k is making about 1k biweekly. They are not receiving a tax deduction of 173 dollars, this would be a 17 percent tax reduction. Their tax rate is being reduced to 25% from 28%, a reduction of about 30 dollars biweekly and over a year about 1500 dollars. Your chart is absurd and just one more example of how corrupt the media is and how misled you people are.

ps. regarding missing charity relief funds, i found 2 things the first related to clinton, the second seemingly not at all (the red cross)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-never-built/

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524...n-haiti-relief

i need *YOUR SOURCE* that this money is missing.

This is an excellent example of why I do not trust the sources you use. Read your washington post article carefully. Throughout they blame the US government, toward the end after most people have stopped reading they very briefly touch on blaming Bill Clinton for the loss of the government money. Throughout they are very careful to make clear that the Clinton foundation was not responsible for the missing funds, but that these were US government funds. Thus by inference Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation are not directly implicated. What they fail to mention anywhere in the article is that Hillary, who was secretary of state during the crisis, was officially placed in charge of the whole government relief operation in Haiti including coordinating the international relief efforts. Hillary Clinton also personally placed Bill in charge of overseeing the operation. The Clinton foundation was also very involved in administrating the operation.
So why did your source neglect to mention that? And what else is your source not telling us? Are they twisting any information?
This is why I explained to you: Clintons campaign is in direct contact with these news agencies you keep linking, such as the washington post. I cannot rely on them for giving accurate information and I cannot take them as anything more than Clinton campaign press statements.
If you want a reliable news source it has to be from the alternative media, and drudge has proven excellent:
http://www.drudge.com/news/203113/cl...-rich-off-poor
http://www.drudge.com/news/204345/ha...cam-them-again
As you can see the CLinton foundation was actually very involved, especially at the administrative level of the operation.
This video is excellent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1nUAC6xIP8
Note that we are not talking about 500 million like your link states. We are talking about the entire operation: up to 13 billion dollars and possibly more, Bill & Hillary Clinton oversaw the entire operation including the foreign donations.

ugh crazedrat. you can't read. like now you're even misrepresenting what i said. e.g. "claim to be well read." there are often facts that everyone agrees on - things like when was the meeting, who met, when did someone join a board, is someone running a charity or are they not - like do you see how all your confusing presentation even messing up the basic info will make it really difficult for someone to follow anything you say. i just did *the first part of this* aka just a basic fucking fact check.

No, we do not agree that these are 'basic facts' because much of the information is not falsifiable and very likely comes directly from the Clinton campaign. It might be true, or it might not be. If it is verified by a variety of sources and some of the sources have a credible history than we may begin to accept it as true. Though we must also remember that most news outlets simply copy other news outlets, so what we really want is an original story from a reliable news organization. We also have to note which information is critical and which information is tangential and can be ignored.

the main issue i'm having with the mining one is that there isn't even any mining happening. can we please focus on something that has a greater significance.

No, we really can't ignore this topic and I cannot see how you can deem it insignificant. Regardless of whether Clinton was a successful criminal; whether the Haitian government is blocking the project out of spite, whether the news outlet is putting out lies from the Clinton campaign, whether there is no mining or what is happening with the project (which we do not know), the point that Hillary is a criminal sociopath and has denied the Haitians the relief efforts they've desperately needed resulting in loss of life which continues today - this point remains, and we cannot just ignore that.


do you deny the basic facts of this:

- no mining is happening (the haitian govt is caught up in internal shit and can't grant permits bc of that)
I deny that this is an established fact, because I am skeptical of your sources. I consider it to be a possibility which is also not that important. I am more interested in demonstrating Clintons criminality. Regardless of whether the gold mine con has yet succeeded, Haitian people do not have their hospital rebuilt, or their homes, medicine, etc..
- no money having been made from gold (no mining!)
See above
- rodham and viard are not on the board of clinton foundation, they are not running the clinton global initiative
This has never been claimed by anyone as far as I'm aware. Rodham is Clintons brother. Why would he need to be on the Clinton foundation board to demonstrate a conflict of interest? We are discussing the board of the company which bought the gold mine. He is on the board of the gold mine company. Infact he was placed onto the board of the gold mine after the transaction was made, see the video I linked you.
- the "eyebrow raising" about this wasn't about cgi using donations that were supposed to help haiti to fund mining - they were about how clinton's brother got involved with this mining company in haiti, how he met viard at a cgi gathering, and while clinton was still secretary of state
The missing money says it all. Use your brain a little bit. Where has the money gone? We don't see any rebuilt hospitals. We do see a purchased gold mine, however, and other favors for Clinton foundation donors. We are talking about 13 billion dollars and probably more with regard to the total government relief effort, to be clear. See the video.
- wikileaks themselves tweeted that they weren't saying that seth rich was murdered or a source necessarily. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status...616640?lang=en if you take that to mean they're saying "no, really we are, but we can't say bc of our rule about our sources" you are speculating - which means you are making a supposition not a fact. just say it's a supposition instead of being like "this is the TRUTH" bc that is so misleading and misrepresentative
It's actually not uncommon to be without empirical proof of something, but to arrive at a conclusion through rational means. What parameters would you suggest for establishing information as factual with regard to news media? I hope you are not relying on the authority of news people deeming information factual over your own reasoning skills. Infact most information you are treating as factual you do not have empirical evidence for. We are concerned with understanding events from a rational standpoint. There is always some degree of skepticism maintained towards even the most basic things. I would argue this is a 'rational fact' but that's another matter. We are confident in the truth of the claim and we will rely on it as fact.

one tip about basic facts that anyone can look up - news sources like the washington post aren't going to lie about those because people can easily call them out on it. you can probably count on the basic facts they present. they also will usually put statements of revisions on articles if someone points out they were in error.

if much of the news media is, as many claim, in the pocket of clinton or whatever it's their slant that will be impacted, what they don't say, what they won't cover, what they won't dig into, what they will deflect away from, etc. if they are to fabricate information entirely, they would need to be quite careful bc if they are caught the consequences would not be in their best interest. i don't think that something like "no vcs gold mining is happening in haiti" is a false statement or part of a conspiracy, and that really there is a mining operation well under way right at this moment and hillary is clinking her champagne glass with her brother right now as they review his financial gains and giggle.

No, much of the information news agencies present is simply not easily falsified, and news agencies lie constantly. The media will usually protect their credibility and not run with information which can be readily debunked by a average person or their competitors, that is true, though this does not always happen. But whether the information is actually factual is a different matter entirely. If a story cannot be readily debunked it is often accepted as virtual fact by the media, especially if it serves their interests.
We have podesta emails of Clintons campaign fabricating a story of sexual misconduct against Trump, a story which the media ran with at the time. That story wasn't fact, was it? It wasn't easily falsified. These are liars.

news articles are only a starting point, you would have to dig deeper to get more info. it's time consuming and hard work (it's called research). but it helps if you start with getting the basic facts straight if you wish to be taken seriously and not just as a troll.

ps. personally insulting me and saying i can't use my brain because i won't agree with your word salad is a sad attack to compensate for how you just want to believe this without checking on anything. iow, you are being intellectually lazy, and that is not my fault - though i do understand intellectual laziness personally. it's why i am in fact *not* well read on all these news articles. all i have are unconfirmed suspicions and a sea of overlapping and contradictory ones. but in short, you are just being a jerk in addition to trolling.

Show me respect and I will show you the same.

[marooned]

to be clear, i am not an avid follower of the washington post in particular, but in the work checking your claims and trying to find some source of information that isn't random/strange looking, by coincidence i ended up with that one more often. although i'm sure you would think that any major news source is full of lies. coincidentally i was ranting in the shoutbox the other evening about major media sources giving streams of opinions > facts. but you can keep your assumptions that you use as personal attacks. my initial attitude towards you was because your post seemed like troll dung.

This is an excellent example of why I do not trust the sources you use. Read your washington post article carefully. Throughout they blame the US government, toward the end after most people have stopped reading they very briefly touch on blaming Bill Clinton for the loss of the government money. Throughout they are very careful to make clear that the Clinton foundation was not responsible for the missing funds, but that these were US government funds. Thus by inference Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation are not directly implicated. What they fail to mention anywhere in the article is that Hillary, who was secretary of state during the crisis, was officially placed in charge of the whole government relief operation in Haiti including coordinating the international relief efforts. Hillary Clinton also personally placed Bill in charge of overseeing the operation. The Clinton foundation was also very involved in administrating the operation.

duh the clintons were heavily involved as was the clinton foundation (or clinton global initiative). every article about them and haiti says so. including the one you say doesn't say so (unless you meant the other washington post article - they are both wp though so it's not an attempt to obscure this on their part):

The Clintons played a major role in recovery efforts in Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010. Former president Bill Clinton was the public face of U.S. efforts in Haiti through several recovery roles. He was the United Nations special envoy to Haiti, co-leader of the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund (with former president George W. Bush) and co-chairman of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, a quasi-government planning body that approved hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. government-funded recovery projects.

The U.S. Agency for International Development supported the commission’s efforts, and Hillary Clinton led the U.S. response in Haiti as secretary of state. The Clinton Foundation raised more than $30 million for Haiti relief projects.

So why did your source neglect to mention that? And what else is your source not telling us? Are they twisting any information?

it's under the section entitled "facts." your first link in your post (http://www.drudge.com/news/203113/cl...-rich-off-poor) btw was actually sourcing the national review and the article seemed to mix up a few things - such as tony rodham and hugh rodham, who have been fused into a single person. tony rodham is the one involved with the mining venture. the national review article seemed to be saying hugh rodham was involved in the housing project but i can't find any other source that says that. does the national review have the sole scoop or have they mixed something up?

what i was trying to get to the bottom of since you *seemed* to be making specific claims, was which money specifically is missing. but okay, you mean more broadly that it doesn't matter. "most of it."

i can agree with you that the clintons fucked up in haiti. but you seemed to be saying they did so intentionally and criminally (it could not be so reprehensible otherwise). and i was pushing for some proof. the reason i don't trust hillary clinton is that she is *surrounded* by these sorts of stories. i find it nearly impossible for her to be squeaky clean. the question is just how bad is it.

- rodham and viard are not on the board of clinton foundation, they are not running the clinton global initiative
[B]This has never been claimed by anyone as far as I'm aware. Rodham is Clintons brother. Why would he need to be on the Clinton foundation board to demonstrate a conflict of interest? We are discussing the board of the company which bought the gold mine. He is on the board of the gold mine company. Infact he was placed onto the board of the gold mine after the transaction was made, see the video I linked you.

lol. *you* were the one who lumped them all together making it sound as though rodham and viard were involved with running the clinton foundation ("on the charity board"). this kind of thing is one of the reasons why your posts read to me like spam with an agenda.

her brother along with more people also running the charity

Do you not find it reprehensible that a person entrusted to provide charity relief to a disaster stricken area where 150,000 people died and are in need of hospitals / medicine / housing is instead using the donated money for a gold mine deal for her brother and others on the charity board?

although i deleted it and don't feel like re-pasting as my internet is being so slow it's barely working, the way to check the fact there is no mining, is you'll note every news source ever that mentions it, seems to agree on this point (and not just the major ones). the mining permits were put on hold because the haitian govt had a lot of concerns, including environmental ones, and i can't remember what else. nothing was seemingly reported since 2015 but articles suggested the haitian govt was changing its president and other important officials and that it takes it months to get on track to getting new things under way, and there was no guarantee at all that the gold mine would be high up on the priority list given haiti has had some sort of freeze on mining both its gold and copper for a very long time. beyond this there isn't a reason to lie about this?

The missing money says it all. Use your brain a little bit. Where has the money gone? We don't see any rebuilt hospitals. We do see a purchased gold mine, however, and other favors for Clinton foundation donors. We are talking about 13 billion dollars and probably more with regard to the total government relief effort, to be clear.

er, i don't think viard owns the gold mine? i think he had won a permit for his company based out of north carolina to mine there. the permit was put on hold, which is why there actually isn't a mine. i didn't find anything (though i wasn't looking) linking viard more directly to the clintons: had he never met tony rodham at the "gathering," he would still be trying to mine in haiti (independent of the clintons). but i can accept that you take no pains in these little factual details and that you are trying to just in some way mention the larger beast that is the clinton haiti relief fuck up.

and yes i would also like to know why the clintons were so utterly incompetent in haiti relief efforts after the 2010 quake. i would like to see a confirmed list of all the relief funds both to the u.s. govt and to the clinton foundation and something showing how they were spent. i would also like to evaluate if the fuck up is particularly worse than the other ways the u.s. govt seems to waste money left and right (i imagine it is).

this article (perhaps you will approve as it is not the washington post), reads as legit to me. it reports on how chelsea objected to the utter incompetence with which relief efforts were run/organized and how they disregarded the needs of the haitian people who had independently started their own relief for themselves since they were getting so little help. it was a total disaster. and i don't see any news source saying it wasn't a mess. hillary clinton is apparently proud of the work there however - and i'm not sure how to take that.

anyway, i've gotten far enough in this to see how you are putting your info together. ty for posting a source/something other than just claims.

this could be worth looking into more; though my internet is incapable of loading most of the links atm. so perhaps later.

eta http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgi...b_8130026.html successfully loaded page. i think this one is good.

(i don't think we will largely see eye-to-eye on this because my standards are too high. i do what you're doing more in terms of balancing suspicions, and i need more to move something into the realm where i will believe it.)

p.s. i have already determined a while back that trump is too dangerous to vote for. but my vote's not going to matter much as i'm in a blue state. i'm just interested in not regretting my choice after.

[End]

If this is true, then the idea of closing the loopholes of corporations is great, but he's still lowering the tax rate for the wealthiest far too much and for the middle class and poor far too little:

Listen @Raver, the elite don't ever give a flying fuck about the middle and lower classes. The ruling class views both as but mere cattle, the lower classes serve to terrify the middle class into accepting the status quo where they do all the work, pay all the taxes, and get nothing except a false sense of security from the mob violence that occurs every damn day in the inner city ghettos at best. I live in such a midland. Yeah, I don't hear gunshots every night but I know damn good and well that if I remain here for a few more years I'll be dodging bullets from hoodrat gangster Saturday Night Specials that (thankfully for me) can't hit the broadside of a barn without a considerable amount of skill (which the average hoodrat thankfully lacks).

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that the basic bitch entrepreneur isn't the evil asshole you imagine them to be. If I had the cash I'd fund/create a good private security firm. I'd be the man on the beat too, for if I don't risk my ass on patrol how the hell can I expect my employees to do the same? Taxes ought to be calculated based on how much waste it took for you to produce what ya did. Tax benefits ought to accrue to those who made more than they "requested" as it were. We ought punish the leeches who take in a ton of taxes and produce little in return by taxing them out the ass until they poop blood!

[rat200Turbo]

I never said 'on the charity board'. I do not have the patience to fully reply to you, and I think my previous responses are sufficient, but I will clarify this one point. Your quote of the washington post article:
"The U.S. Agency for International Development supported the commission’s efforts, and Hillary Clinton led the U.S. response in Haiti as secretary of state. The Clinton Foundation raised more than $30 million for Haiti relief projects."
The only place in the article where they mention her, very briefly and vaguely, which really minimizes the extent of her involvement. The sentence does not make clear her involvement actually was. Her role as head of the operation and the extent of her involvement should have been made clear throughout the entire article as they discussed the hospitals that were never built and other things. They should have mentioned that the clinton foundation basically managed the relief effort in its entirety. The rest of the article then focuses exclusively on exonerating the clinton foundation, as if the allegation was limited to the clinton foundation. ANd with regards to the clinton foundation it mainly focuses on her brother, while the allegations actually include favors for many donors including the building of a 400 million dollar factory for a donors company. Nowhere do I see mentioned the primary allegations that 13 billions dollars of government relief is unaccounted for. It keeps mentioning the number "500 million", a mostly irrelevant number which does happen to be the amount of the 13 billion that's been accounted for and most of which went into that factory. This is a number which has been tied to the Clinton foundation all over the place to shine the record. Without a doubt much of the information and the spin we are seeing came directly from the Clinton campaign.

[replica]

I have never been interested in politics until I realized that the american people's minds were so warped by reality tv and conspiracy theories that they could not see that Trump is a selfish, greedy person whose motives for running have nothing to do with helping anyone but himself and his family.

Look, a few months ago I was ardently against Trump, so I understand both sides of the argument. I've come to the conclusion that he's better than Clinton.

You characterize Trump as selfish, greedy, and has bad motives. Of course, we all know that Clinton is totally selfless, philanthropic, and has nothing but the best intentions

The Seth Rich conspiracy theory is not baseless. Assange has implied several times that he was a source. "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year old, works for the DNC, shot in the back, murdered."

[marooned]

@ratrevisits

it doesn't matter. a single article is not a source of absolute truth (that one was the washington post's assessment of the question). as i already said, everyone knows the clintons were both heavily involved. it's simply a fact. i actually haven't even read that wp article in full yet, but have been digging through the state dept emails and the cepr reporting on haiti. i linked the two articles i did bc i was trying to figure out which money you were more specifically referring to, and those two came from a quick search. but you weren't ever referring to anything specific, so i've moved on from asking you anything about the claims you post.

eta: i read it now. it was an attempt to fact check the hospital claim. they couldn't find support for it. the man who made the claim won't say where he got it from. should we just believe him? or should we maybe accept their are liars and corrupt individuals on both sides of this?

the slate posted an interesting article about the clintons and haiti: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...and_haiti.html btw.

--

there's a lot of money that went into the haiti relief, not just with the u.s. but the u.n. it's a highly complex mess of things to account for. you seem to just want to skip over all that and say it's all hillary clinton in particular. and then just note problems with tone or evasions or whatever from news sources. but those things can't hide facts or lack of really. if you just read looking for facts, all that other stuff just gets screened out as irrelevant. i think that "people reading between the lines" is actually one of the issues with a lot of our news sources - although they don't always state their opinions and suspicions as facts, they will spend endless time speculating in a fashion where it makes it seem they are dancing around facts that "we all know but cannot say, that we can never confirm or deny because the powers that be won't let us." i think it's a terrible way to run the news. it just supports a feeling that you might as well give up because no one knows anything; all they can do is speculate and hyperbolize. (and by this i mean all the major news networks, not just fox news.) it also doesn't support people reaching their own conclusions; but instead the news sources present their conclusion > the raw info. and ofc they all have agendas, because if they didn't - if they cared about reporting on accurate info - they wouldn't do that as much as they do. clearly they are more interested in spreading influence than info in many cases.

and you did say the things i directly quoted you as saying unless you've went back and edited them out of your posts or something.

if it helps, so far what i've found is that bill clinton has been extremely involved in haiti, even before the 2010 quake (not to say hillary hasn't, i'm sure she has). in her emails hillary will directly mention things he recommended, which is a little disturbing given that the clinton foundation is an ngo. the question of whether or not hillary overstepped her role as secretary of state in this is quite valid imo (though i haven't looked up the rules on that). i think both of them were interested in an approach of trying to get more business into haiti when a lot of businesses don't want to risk going there due to the constant political instability and poor infrastructure (that haiti is also constantly falling victim to natural disasters doesn't help either). this approach is based on the idea of growing haiti's economy. the question of if it's just a nefarious scheme to hoard more money for the clintons themselves and their buddies, is a more serious charge, and something that i would want some direct evidence of some sort on to be convinced of.

(anyway the above, is just my take on it given what i've read.)

i think that it does look like the u.s. definitely interfered with haiti's elections after the 2010 quake: http://cepr.net/blogs/haiti-relief-a...aiti-elections. there is too much there really to deny. i suspect the clintons and others couldn't adapt to changing circumstances in the wake of the quake and were fixated on their economic growth/business development idea. a haitian president that would support that plan would be what they would want. ofc it appears also that the president "elected" thanks to all this outside interference didn't turn out to be what they wanted anyway.

that relief funds in general were mismanaged, is also pretty clear.

and i mean it is all very upsetting, since all these big players swoop in on haiti after the earthquake (including outside companies that want to profit from the rubble) and there seems to be so little focus on the haitian people themselves and what they need or want.

i already though expect this kind of crap from the u.s. govt. (sorry if i appear to be underplaying the role of the clintons as well, but degree of involvement on particular things matters in evaluating accountability.)

you can go through emails here: https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx and enter a date range and search term.

ps. if you don't like that the clintons were trying to get big business into haiti, just think about trump and how much he likes big business.

[Aylen]

Look, a few months ago I was ardently against Trump, so I understand both sides of the argument. I've come to the conclusion that he's better than Clinton.

You characterize Trump as selfish, greedy, and has bad motives. Of course, we all know that Clinton is totally selfless, philanthropic, and has nothing but the best intentions

The Seth Rich conspiracy theory is not baseless. Assange has implied several times that he was a source. "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year old, works for the DNC, shot in the back, murdered."

Let me put it this way, I'd just as soon see Charlie Sheen run for president and WIN. He is much more entertaining and interesting than Trump. Trump is unstable so the rational choice would be Hillary because there is no way the other two will win. So if you do not want someone who is unstable, sexually assaults women, (brags about it then threatens to sue them when they back up his own story) so weak minded that he can be baited by a twitter post, and cries about it being unfair, what choice is there? He is the creepiest kind of liar because he says things on camera and then denies them outright. That tells me he is a terrible strategist and only follows his whims. If he could have kept it together things might have been different for him but as of now he will be the source of his own downfall if he loses. He has preemptively been creating a narrative on his losing but most people see through it and know exactly what he is doing. I am not sure if he really wants to win tbh. If he does he certainly sucks at make the right choices that would have ensured his victory. I don't hate Trump so I think I am being objective here. Hillary doesn't scare me one bit. He is too unstable to deal with other world leaders.



#charliesheen2020 <-- election rigging brought to you by the reptilians. stay tuned!

[rat200Turbo]

You're a liar like your candidate.

Inumbra: I am tired of wasting time going over your tangents in this discussion, and your points keep getting weaker / longer, so I will just address one of your statements:

"ps. if you don't like that the clintons were trying to get big business into haiti..."
A major catastrophe like this, where 150,000 people died and many more are in need of medicine / hospitals and other things, is not the time to be "bringing in big business to Haiti" with corrupt use of disaster relief funds, for projects not related to the disaster relief effort. This is sociopathic, criminal behavior, and the fact you are making an effort to excuse it is consistent with your constant defensive posturing and rephrasing / refusal to acknowledge very simple and clear evidence. And no, I do not accept that Trump "would have done this". It truly takes a rare, criminal sociopath to do something like this. Trump has not proven himself to be on this level, and most people aren't. Greediness does not compare to something like this. We haven't even discussed how CLinton created ISIS (intentionally) and is currently funding them in a proxy war against the Syrian government. Which is a war crime. But this Haiti thing, by itself, should really be enough for any sane person to question their support of this insane woman.

[marooned]

You're a liar like your candidate.

hahaha really? man. my ways of responding to you haven't really been civil and have generated bad karma. i will soon be attacked by birds who will carry me off to join my dead boyfriend. (even if that wasn't directed at me, i'm fine pretending it was.)

i am actually more satisfied regarding haiti than i was before. and had it not been for our argument i wouldn't be. it got me to go digging. i am confident in saying that i disagree with you on this. the little voices asking "what if despite all sense it's true and billions of dollars and a hospital are missing!" have quieted.

i'll get to the former president of the senate of haiti.

and i liked your post before one of your edits.

[Aylen]

[rat200Turbo]

You people are such a constant source of disappointment.

[replica]

So if you do not want someone who is unstable, sexually assaults women, (brags about it then threatens to sue them when they back up his own story)

I'm kind of dubious to those sexual assault claims. Trump is a billionaire that has been surrounded by hot women for decades, and had zero sexual assault claims, why now? They could have taken him to court and got rich from a hefty settlement, but only now they decide to come forward... right before the election... I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it seems very coordinated. Color me skeptical.
In the 90s when the media did this, they needed witnesses independent of the victim who were not friends, lovers, or relatives before they went public with it. Nowadays you can literally just say "he groped me" and its covered 24 hours a day on CNN and its your job to prove it didn't happen.

so weak minded that he can be baited by a twitter post, and cries about it being unfair, what choice is there?

I don't disagree with this. I mean, in the last debate he was asked about the supreme court, and he just said "Ruth Bader Ginesberg said bad things about me." Nobody gives a shit Trump. You should be talking about upholding the constitution.
If I had the opportunity to talk to Trump, I would say something like: Hey, asshole, it's not about you anymore. There are a bunch of hard working, good people, who have been forgotten by Washington, and they're hurting. They're completely ignored about jobs, the markets, the open border, etc, and they have lined up behind you. You need to look beyond your ego and try to be the conduit thru which these people can voice their legit concerns and heal."

He has preemptively been creating a narrative on his losing but most people see through it and know exactly what he is doing. I am not sure if he really wants to win tbh.

Look at his twitter, all he ever does is talk about winning.

Hillary doesn't scare me one bit.

She really should.
She wants to continue the foreign policy disasters of the last 60 years. She accepts millions from dark foreign entities.
Here'a a very damning leaked email where Podesta agrees with a citation from a story that the Iran deal will condemn the world to a nuclear war:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails...CbACeADpADsAEL
“This agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf… This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to ******.”


I have knots in the pit of my stomach reading that. The world is so screwed because of Washington elites like Clinton. Can you really blame anyone for not wanting her at the helm?

[replica]

If you're a Clinton supporter you probably hate Sargon, but I think he outlines some important stuff to consider here:

[marooned]

I don't disagree with this. I mean, in the last debate he was asked about the supreme court, and he just said "Ruth Bader Ginesberg said bad things about me." Nobody gives a shit Trump. You should be talking about upholding the constitution.
If I had the opportunity to talk to Trump, I would say something like: Hey, asshole, it's not about you anymore. There are a bunch of hard working, good people, who have been forgotten by Washington, and they're hurting. They're completely ignored about jobs, the markets, the open border, etc, and they have lined up behind you. You need to look beyond your ego and try to be the conduit thru which these people can voice their legit concerns and heal."

unfortunately trump is a narcissist and he can't feel anything for anyone but himself, though as an entertainer he can put on a good show. he improved with this tendency in each debate but still near the end of the 3rd, he lost it again. if anyone criticizes him, he takes it personally and lashes out at them in response like an upset toddler. i don't think he can control himself. any criticism directed at his actions is first and foremost "unfair" regardless of if it is true.

[replica]

unfortunately trump is a narcissist and he can't feel anything for anyone but himself, though as an entertainer he can put on a good show. he improved with this tendency in each debate but still near the end of the 3rd, he lost it again. if anyone criticizes him, he takes it personally and lashes out at them in response like an upset toddler. i don't think he can control himself. any criticism directed at his actions is first and foremost "unfair" regardless of if it is true.

I could say the same about Clinton, minus the entertainer part. The difference being that Trump has a few good policies that would help America, imo.

[rat200Turbo]

Your choice is between electing a sociopath and mass murderer or a temperamental narcissist, you figure it out.

[marooned]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.7e4129a7d422

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.c38120447124

[rat200Turbo]

Inumbra do you deny the truth about 9/11, that it was an inside job? Just curious.

[Beautiful sky]

Michelle Obama because she is very caring

[Park]

Van Jones speaks my mind. Trump is a thug who needs to be brought to court. And yes, the media is racially biased, corrupt and full of shit as usual.

[Eliza Thomason]

I'm kind of dubious to those sexual assault claims. Trump is a billionaire that has been surrounded by hot women for decades, and had zero sexual assault claims, why now? They could have taken him to court and got rich from a hefty settlement, but only now they decide to come forward... right before the election... I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it seems very coordinated. Color me skeptical.
In the 90s when the media did this, they needed witnesses independent of the victim who were not friends, lovers, or relatives before they went public with it. Nowadays you can literally just say "he groped me" and its covered 24 hours a day on CNN and its your job to prove it didn't happen.

I agree with you here. I think the sexual assault claims are trumped up (sorry for the pun). I think the media is taking advantage of the fact that Trump is an Egotist and probably a Narcissist, and many sexually abusive men (and some women) are pathological egotists and somatic narcissists. I do not think Trump is a pathological, but being an egotist so prominent in the media is honestly triggering a lot of women who have had traumatic sexual encounters with a pathological egotists or abusive somatic narcissists. And if you are not over that trauma (which is not easy to get over), as time goes on, the triggers get worse - and the trauma memory last years and years and years. So its opportune for the morally corrupt to take advantage of what such women will truly believe.

IMO (having had a Narcissist factor in my life and having read Vaknin extensively, as well as other authors), Trump, if he is a Narcissist, is a common Cerebral Narcissist, and not the much less-common sexually-problematic Somatic Narcissist (which we have a prime example of in Hillary's husband).

I agree with replica - the charges are very coordinated and suspicious. It really stinks, and not because I feel for Trumps feelings (somehow that's not a problem) but because I CAN'T STAND watching people bearing false witness, as well as the people who cooperate with and help facilitate it, or the people being willing to believe it so readily. All those things disgust me. (Excused from my disgust are the traumatized and triggered, who have a legitimate excuse for believing this, and sadly, are the ones being "played" in here.)

________
Disclaimer: I am not trying to convince any one to change their mind on their favorite candidate. I completely don't expect to. I respect anyone's right to a completely different opinion from mine.

[Eliza Thomason]

You characterize Trump as selfish, greedy, and has bad motives. Of course, we all know that Clinton is totally selfless, philanthropic, and has nothing but the best intentions

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u...conan-rofl.gif

[replica]

This was beautiful. I never expected Michael Moore to be so even-handed and understanding.

JOIN USSS!!

[marooned]

[replica]

I'm not saying Michael Moore endorsed Trump, he just summed up how I feel. Trump is a big, orange middle finger that we can shove up Washington's ass.

[ashlesha]

The statement that the sexual assault claims against trump are some new trend are untrue. The alleged rape against his exwife came out in a deposition in the early 90s. An attempted rape against a business associate was the subject of a lawsuit in 1997. After the beginning of the election but prior to the current flood of women was a federal lawsuit alleging child rape last June (if the media was against him from the start, where was that)?

So even if we were to dismiss completely the word of all the women who have only recently come forward, we still have at least 2 attempted or completed rapes prior to the turn of the century, along with his own words.

 

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that before a show, I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it.

Theres no way you could look at this mountain of evidence piled over decades - including his own confessions! - and say "what's the problem?" Not without deluding yourself.

Not that this is surprising. Rich and powerful men having free reign over women's bodies has been the way of the world for a long time - both trump and Bill Clinton have a history of allegations and ties to that dirtbag pedophile Epstein. Nor is it unsurprising that these men are defended and championed by the common people... but that's the part that disappoints me.

[rat200Turbo]

As much as you would like to string him up, I can't recognize "kissing women who let you do it and grabbing their pussy" as sexual assault. "Let you do it", you really cannot take that and jump to sexual assault, sorry.
Within the Podesta emails we have already seen the Clinton campaign fabricating a story of him sexually exploiting women, a story which came out in the news. I do not believe these new allegations. The Clinton campaign has proven we cannot trust these claims. It is too easy to find a woman and pay her to say these things, 8 women within 3 weeks of the election is just not believable.
His wife denies that he raped her also. Now maybe he did, who knows? What do you expect. You want me to assume he raped her and therefor not vote for him when she is saying he didn't?
Maybe I would and this would seem more important if we weren't up against a sociopath and mass murderer who created / is currently funding ISIS and many other things.

[ashlesha]

His wife denies that he raped her, something you didn't mention.
I do not recognize "kissing women who let you do it and grabbing their pussy" as sexual assault - "Let you do it", you really cannot take that and jump to rape.

What his ex wife described was rape, and she didn't retract the story. She just said she didn't want the word "rape" to be taken literally or interpreted criminally. It doesn't change the facts.

Going up to strange women and kissing them or grabbing them by the pussy is predatory regardless of whether they're too intimidated or star struck to do anything about it. Its not rape, but it's at the very least a reflection of his character that lends credence to groping accusations.

[ashlesha]

Maybe you should all just come out as dykes and formally toss men aside, seems like that's what you people want anyway.

Exhibit A: The mentality driving the people who defend creeps like Trump.

[rat200Turbo]

Yeah well I edited that so move on.
You don't know what the situation between him and these women was, what type of chemistry or undercurrent was there, you don't even know who they are. Maybe they did let him do it?
You really have alot of nerve taking my defense of a probably innocent man, at least in respect to alot of these accusations, and trying to shame me for it.

[ashlesha]

Within the Podesta emails we have already seen the Clinton campaign fabricating a story of him sexually exploiting women, a story which came out in the news. I do not believe these new allegations. The Clinton campaign has proven we cannot trust these claims. It is too easy to find a woman and pay her to say these things, 8 women within 3 weeks of the election is just not believable.

The Clinton campaign is shady as fuck and I don't put this past them. But his history goes back decades - I didn't even address anything new in my post. I personally believe that where there's smoke there's fire.

Maybe I would and this would seem more important if we weren't up against a sociopath and mass murderer who created / is currently funding ISIS and many other things.

I respect y'all when you focus on stuff like the funding of ISIS instead of defending him being nasty.

[rat200Turbo]

Lungs, I do not know whether he raped his wife. Maybe he did. Or, she might have said that to get more money out of a divorce settlement. The idea of raping your wife is already a grey area. So you know what? If she cannot stand by her statement... if she denies it now, how can I take it seriously? I can question maybe something went on but I cannot arrive at a conclusion about it. Probably something did happen, probably. How do I know whether I should blame him, or both of them? It's the same with this "grab them by the pussy" thing. He said they let him do it.

Adult women really have to stand up and say "No" if they expect to go after someone like this. "A man with power", do they not have the power to say no? I don't actually see much power or threat looming over someones head sitting next to a man on an airplane either. I see nothing forcing her to sit there and let it happen.

[ashlesha]

I never had any conscious agenda to shame you. I don't have any hard feelings against you personally. I think we've kinda wrung this topic dry and there are things more relevant to the fate of the world wrt to this election. After seeing someone say that all the allegations were new I just wanted to say my piece.

[Chae]

German mass media start reporting that Trump has already lost. For instance, this article basically states that Hillary will win based on the recent changes in her senate promotion strategy, Trump's lack of support from his party, and the polls. On the other hand, they mention that a Brexit scenario could take place, that people don't vote based on their belief that others will vote for Hillary and they don't have to & that the poll results are definite.

[marooned]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart.../#acf60fe138c9

[Eliza Thomason]

@lungs, re: words we all know, above, in post #350 - I actually didn't know those words, since I have often made a point to avoid following this election propaganda. My response to them is that he sounds just like the clowny egotist we already see he is. Men like beautiful women and he is bragging about his proximity/involvement with all these gorgeous women, to impress, in a manner of an overgrown adolescent. As to grabbing and kissing, one thing to consider is the fact that at its true - some star struck women choose to allow/consent to this and a lot more, while others rebuff the groping of opportunists. How he responds to the rebuffs tells a lot as to what kind of a creep he actually is. He strikes me as one one who would just go onto the next ones, because he considers there's lots more where they came from in his rich world. Also if his romantic style is "Aggressor", some would be fine with it and some would take offense to it.

In these times with more women than other times (at least IMO) traumatized by previous sexual trespasses/aggressions and where women are told they should not tolerate ANY of this (and they shouldn't, but, a lot of the time, just being assertive and straightforward in the face of it will solve the problem with the culprit completely) its no surprise that some would take their offense to the courts. The offense can be minor groping like he brags about - blown up and embellished in hopes of a big settlement from the guy with the fat wallet. Because that is the way of the world.

However, considering he is an aggressive, grabby, braggart with notoriously deep pockets, its an extremely small list you have here of accusers over his long career (the child-one, out of the blue, while running for president against the media's baby reeks of a lie) confirm for me my idea that he is just a plain old buffoony egotist and maybe also a cerebral narcissist - not the textbook somatic narcissist like Bill who was always surrounded by lovers and accusers (and apparently a very tolerantly wife with a blind eye. Who stays married to a man like that??).

[Aylen]

Van Jones speaks my mind. Trump is a thug who needs to be brought to court. And yes, the media is racially biased, corrupt and full of shit as usual.

I like Van Jones a lot and watch him whenever I get a chance. He is funny and intelligent. Everything he says here is true.

@Eliza Thomason, I suggest you watch this. I bet you would have jumped on what Van says here if it was Obama's character under the microscope. You would not have dismissed it then.

It is hard enough for the average woman to accuse the average man of inappropriate behavior and I know this from talking to many women over the years. I worked in an industry where sexual harassment, by the employers, was just part of the job and tolerated because women were trying to get through school or had kids to support. I am sure you can imagine what it would be like to accuse a sue happy billionaire of inappropriate conduct unless they have some support system. He threatens to destroy people's lives in a court of law. When it is your word against the other you feel like why even bother especially if it is someone who is well liked by a lot of people. Think of Bill Cosby.

I am not talking about chemistry or mutual attraction.

[rat200Turbo]

It's hard to claim you're being sexually harassed when you're ... shall we say, part of the sex industry.

[ashlesha]

being a sex worker doesn't mean everybody is allowed to do whatever they want with you, lol, wtf?? can you claim you've been attacked if you're a professional boxer?

[Kim]

I was sexually harassed by a "man in power" (a celebrity in my field). He tried to coerce me into a sexual relationship by offering a postdoc (he knew I was desperate for a job at the time), touched me, and tried to kiss me. All this happened at a conference he had organized and to which he had invited me. He also told people before my arrival that I was "his special friend" (I had never even exchanged a personal word beside job-related stuff with him). I didn't do anything because it would have been his word against mine and he was (is) very well-respected. I felt disgusted, violated, disrespected, and ashamed for a very long time. It also had an impact on my career (I changed fields to avoid him).

This happened years ago, but if this guy ran for president and claimed on TV he never did any of this, I would come forward, too. Especially if I saw other women doing the same.