2016 US Presidential election thread

[Oberon]

If you define debate as two sides shouting at each other, then there probably will be. :hmmm:

[August]

Hmm, wasn't the FEMA the organisation that builds Obama's death camps for people criticizing him, or trying to prevent his fourth presidential term, or found out about Obama's chemtrails for mind control, or his socialist plans, or his plans to convert the US to a muslim country, or his health care created to kill veterans, or his other evil plans, or whatever ?


Nah, they're the ones that did all that stuff for George Bush.

[vienna]

Are there going be any debates?

The debates were actually a bit up in the air until a couple of days ago when Trump finally declared he was going to participate; until then, there had been no definite indication from the Trump camp of his wanting to attend. The first debate is on Sep 26, 2016. Here is a link to the official Commission's website:

http://www.debates.org/

Interestingly, Trump, at the time he announced his participation, also made the declaration he would not be holding any mock debates, a sort of dry run practice for the actual debate(s) all other candidates have gone through in modern times. It has been an important tool to iron out any flaws in the candidates delivery and has the benefit of preparing the candidate for any potential questions and responses; think of the mock debates as being as sort of equivalent to sparring matches before a championship fight. If Trump does, indeed, decide to forego mock debates, he may regret it: the biggest problem for Trump thus far has been when Trump was just being Trump. There have already been reports Clinton's staff have engaged the services of consultants who are coaching her on how to push Trump's 'buttons' to make him lose his cool and just start his usual rambling ranting; given how thin-skinned Trump is normally, this may not be a difficult task...

I still have the high suspicion, if the first debate does not go well for Amnesty Don, he will find some way of ducking out, using some excuse like "it's rigged!", or some such thing; I would not be surprised if the full schedule of four debates is cut short...


Regarding walls, I recalled this little bit of humor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOqoRHKUtZY



<O>

[vienna]

Just as a heads up:

Tonight, at 8:00 PM, Eastern US Time, both Clinton and Trump are to appear at "The Commander-In-Chief Forum", a sort of town hall meeting before an audience of veterans and military families; the event will be broadcast on the NBC TV network and on MSNBC. Both candidates will field questions from the audience on concerns regarding the military and US military policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-national-security.html?_r=0

Each candidate will appear separately, with Clinton appearing first (the order was decided by a coin toss), followed by Trump. Might be interesting to watch...



<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks for the heads-up. Perfect timing. I'm watching it right now.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I rather want to ignore this election, but it is like a train wreck..

[Torplexed]

I rather want to ignore this election, but it is like a train wreck..

There just is no good landing spot this year. It's either Agent Orange or Liar, Liar, Pantsuits on fire. I thought Gary Johnson might be a viable protest choice, but geography is apparently not his strong suit since he doesn't know what an Aleppo is. Here's a hint, Gary. It's not the long lost Marx Brother.

Maybe self immolation in the voting booth is in order. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/smiley/00000003.gif

[Platapus]

since he doesn't know what an Aleppo is. Here's a hint, Gary. It's not the long lost Marx Brother.



It's a brand of dog food. Everyone knows that.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, that does it for Hillary. :k_confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ


Blast, that leaves us with the Orange Nutjob.

[Aktungbby]

^ :sign_yeah:Having the 'orange nut job' with a 'finger on the button' just as 'fat boy' in North Korea is developing a nuclear ballistic missile leaves me speechleß ! The expreßion "you're fired" https://media.giphy.com/media/lA1UjqWVdmmpq/giphy.gif takes on new portent! If only Arnold was his Running Man...errr mate!! A 'heartbeat from the presidency'....After all he was head of state of the world's 10 (+ or -) most powerful nation...California...as was Ronald Reagan. https://media.giphy.com/media/5QKHMV8P26rew/giphy.gif

[Gray Lensman]

So tell me, how is that any different than the lyin' witch arranging to sell most of our uranium assets to Russia just for personal enrichment, or the current administration's determination to allow Iran to develop Nukes, a proven foreign govt. sponsor of terrorism and leading exporter or terror weapons? At least the North Korean nut job has demonstrated he's all blustering talk and no action.

I'm more worried about the next 5 months and all our adversaries deciding to take advantage of a super weak current occupant of the white house before he leaves office. They're already jap-slapping him around as demonstrated last week. That includes the Philippine leader, supposedly a friendly ally.


edit> I wonder if this means we are on different sides of this issue? LOL
edit> A thought just occurred to me... If we had a Trump/Clinton or Clinton/Trump combo fantasy ticket we could ALL worry together about the next 4 years.

[Oberon]

The Filipino (http://www.philippinepoliticaldiscourse.com/4-reasons-why-i-no-longer-support-duterte/) leader is (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/25/philippine-presidential-frontrunner-vows-to-kill-his-children-if/)a nutjob (http://uk.businessinsider.com/philippines-dutertes-drug-war-has-killed-nearly-1800-people-2016-8?r=US&IR=T), quite frankly if he's annoyed with you then you're probably doing something right. There was supposed to be a meeting between Obama and Duterte while they were both in Laos but it was cancelled after the media began reporting on the supposed remarks that Duterte made which he has since denied making.

[eddie]

Well, that does it for Hillary. :k_confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ


Blast, that leaves us with the Orange Nutjob.

You know what upsets me on this report Neal, that they are focusing on her, not 9/11. Who gives a crap about her or Trump on a day like this!?! Only the fricking media!!:nope:

[Mr Quatro]

:oWell, that does it for Hillary. :k_confused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11-EAzsGxgQ


Blast, that leaves us with the Orange Nutjob.

I hope everyone clicks on that link, closer inspection is needed of course, but looks like she is not going to make a good POTUS. I've seen men fold while standing at parade rest, but this looks different somehow. A medical problem that I am not qualified to guess at ...

Debate time in two more weeks and then we will see :yep:

edit: I just saw the following video after this accident and it has happened before:

HILLARY CLINTON HAS PARKINSON'S DISEASE, DOCTOR CONFIRMS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8

This doctor says she may have had it for ten years

[Mr Quatro]

:o

I hope everyone clicks on that link, closer inspection is needed of course, but looks like she is not going to make a good POTUS. I've seen men fold while standing at parade rest, but this looks different somehow. A medical problem that I am not qualified to guess at ...

Debate time in two more weeks and then we will see :yep:

edit: I just saw the following video after this accident and it has happened before:

HILLARY CLINTON HAS PARKINSON'S DISEASE, DOCTOR CONFIRMS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8

This doctor says she may have had it for ten years

This picture was taken just this morning before she fainted.

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/09/11/hillary-clinton-has-medical-episode-at-911-ceremony-source-says/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-1/images/image.img.jpg/880/558/1473606747742.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

[Oberon]

I had some Parkinsons a few years back, cleared up after I'd taken some antibiotics.
Did I say Parkinsons? I meant Pneumonia...so easy to get those two confused.

Still, like you say, it's wrong to be focusing on Hillary and the man who boasted that his tower was now the highest in Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers on a day like this. :hmmm:

[Mr Quatro]

I had some Parkinsons a few years back, cleared up after I'd taken some antibiotics.
Did I say Parkinsons? I meant Pneumonia...so easy to get those two confused.

Still, like you say, it's wrong to be focusing on Hillary and the man who boasted that his tower was now the highest in Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers on a day like this. :hmmm:

In other words they are both sick :yep:

[Platapus]

There is nothing in the RNC or DNC rules that prohibits either party from nominating more than one person. It is just never done.

I wonder if the DNC will use Clinton's real or simulated health issues to gracefully remove her and put in a real candidate?

[Oberon]

In other words they are both sick :yep:

Touché :Kaleun_Wink:

[Onkel Neal]

You know what upsets me on this report Neal, that they are focusing on her, not 9/11. Who gives a crap about her or Trump on a day like this!?! Only the fricking media!!:nope:

Good point:Kaleun_Salute:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

:o

HILLARY CLINTON HAS PARKINSON'S DISEASE, DOCTOR CONFIRMS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8

This doctor says she may have had it for ten years

"The Next News Network"

Was the Weekly World News unavailable?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

https://s6.postimg.org/6w7wrn5tt/AAik_AT7.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/dnybuhutd/BBw3_TTJ.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

"The Next News Network"

Was the Weekly World News unavailable?

Oh? Does that matter?

[Von Due]

A quick look at The Next News Network at http://nextnewsnetwork.com/ tells me 2 things:
They are visibly anti-Hillary.
They are pro-Trump.
http://nextnewsnetwork.com/

Dr Ted's theories are not unchallenged
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/09/07/no-there-is-no-evidence-that-hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/
The blog is written by Orac
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/author/oracknows/
also known as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

Seems to me the circus is still on their clowns routine.

[Catfish]

My ex-boss had Parkinson, and it did not hold him back from managing his company. Sure he had some pain now and then, but it depends on what exact kind and in which stage the disease is.

But Clinton does not have Parkinson. And Trump is even two years older than her. Not that this qualifies, or speak for or against either candidate.

[Susexx]

Always have a reserve
http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/1/8/1/8379181.png
:D :D :D

[Catfish]

^ your smilies show way too much teeth :haha:

Seriously, Monica or any other 80 percent of average Americans would mot probably make a better president than these two.. candidates.

[Onkel Neal]

Torvald Von Mansee
A quick look at The Next News Network at http://nextnewsnetwork.com/ tells me 2 things:
They are visibly anti-Hillary.
They are pro-Trump.
http://nextnewsnetwork.com/

Dr Ted's theories are not unchallenged
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/09/07/no-there-is-no-evidence-that-hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/
The blog is written by Orac
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/author/oracknows/
also known as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

Seems to me the circus is still on their clowns routine.

Sorry, I thought this was about the video link I posted, my bad.

I'm not about to defend oddball news sources, but every now and then they are right on target with a subject the MSM is (willfully) ignoring.... Wasn't it the National Enquirer that broke the story about John Edwards (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/13/shock-horror-national-enquirer-pulitzer)? Before that, it was all a conspiracy to smear him.

[Rhodes]

A quick question from a lay man, that occurred to me after seeing the latests news.
What happens, during this phase of the campaign, if one of the candidates dies?
Speaking in hypothetical terms only, of curiosity.

[Gray Lensman]

A quick question from a lay man, that occurred to me after seeing the latests news.
What happens, during this phase of the campaign, if one of the candidates dies?
Speaking in hypothetical terms only, of curiosity.

I would think at this late stage it would go to the chosen Vice presidential candidate, to complete the election run, but this would be a first so who knows...

There are no constitutional provisions since the election has not been held yet. For sure, I don't believe the election can or should be delayed and there's no constitutional provision allowing for such a delay. it's up to whichever party this happens with to put forth their candidate in time for the election date something they should bear in mind when going with someone that does not appear to be in good health. Also, such person should not be thinking of personal power and refusing/hiding health facts putting the party at such a disadvantage. Speaks a lot about power temperments. She should have passed on this so the Dems could have put forth a more healthy candidate but her lust for power just wouldn't allow her to do so.

edit1> Basically it's a gamble that her and the Dems made re:health and they don't get to rewrite election laws just to cover their lost gamble. I'd say the same thing about the GOP also.

edit2> Much as I'd like to see her defeated (my opinion), I hope she doesn't die before the election, because if Obama tries a presidential decree to delay the election, and it gets tied up in a 4/4 Supreme Court draw... You think things were bad in 2000 with the Bush/Gore chad issues... It could get far more messy than even that. We could end up with a hell of a constitutional crisis.

[Rhodes]

I see, thank you!:up:

[August]

A quick question from a lay man, that occurred to me after seeing the latests news.
What happens, during this phase of the campaign, if one of the candidates dies?
Speaking in hypothetical terms only, of curiosity.


That's a good question. While there may be no constitutional restrictions for a party to put up a replacement they are going to have a lot of difficulty getting their name put on the ballot in all 50 states.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

[Mr Quatro]

A quick look at The Next News Network at http://nextnewsnetwork.com/ tells me 2 things:
They are visibly anti-Hillary.
They are pro-Trump.
http://nextnewsnetwork.com/

Dr Ted's theories are not unchallenged
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/09/07/no-there-is-no-evidence-that-hillary-clinton-has-parkinsons-disease/
The blog is written by Orac
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/author/oracknows/
also known as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

Seems to me the circus is still on their clowns routine.

The problem with judging something or someone is that you have to discern first ... same with arson fires you have to discern all of the information and then make your findings known to the proper authorities.

Hillary Clinton's problems are no longer a conspiracy ... I did not gloat when she fell down at the curb losing one of her shoes under her escort van.

All that weird news youtube station did is bring out some facts worth looking into, even NBC is prejudice ... don't forget Dan Rather's downfall judging president Bush wrong cost him his job.

What if Hillary drops out due to health concerns ... who would run in her place, Bernie :o ... and even if she doesn't drop out the undecided voters now have reasons to stay at home or vote for Trump.

It's starting to look like two football teams playing in the Super Bowl and neither team is yours :yep:

[Oberon]

That's a good question. While there may be no constitutional restrictions for a party to put up a replacement they are going to have a lot of difficulty getting their name put on the ballot in all 50 states.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

You think they'd put in Bernie? :hmmm:


Anyway, it seems that Hillarys 'Parkinsons' has spread to other members of her team with six staff ill and two needing emergency respiratory care.

Heh, I wonder how long it'll be before some Dem conspiracy site claims that Trump got Putin to send agents to poison the Democratic team? :haha:

[Rhodes]

Heh, I wonder how long it'll be before some Dem conspiracy site claims that Trump got Putin to send agents to poison the Democratic team? :haha:

Do not give them ideas...:03:

[Mr Quatro]

You think they'd put in Bernie? :hmmm:


Anyway, it seems that Hillarys 'Parkinsons' has spread to other members of her team with six staff ill and two needing emergency respiratory care.

Heh, I wonder how long it'll be before some Dem conspiracy site claims that Trump got Putin to send agents to poison the Democratic team? :haha:

Maybe they ate sushi at the same place :D

[Rockstar]

A quick question from a lay man, that occurred to me after seeing the latests news.
What happens, during this phase of the campaign, if one of the candidates dies?
Speaking in hypothetical terms only, of curiosity.
http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/Obama-four-more-years.jpg

[Gray Lensman]

http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/Obama-four-more-years.jpg

Talk about Gallows humor!

[AVGWarhawk]

You think they'd put in Bernie? :hmmm:


Anyway, it seems that Hillarys 'Parkinsons' has spread to other members of her team with six staff ill and two needing emergency respiratory care.

Heh, I wonder how long it'll be before some Dem conspiracy site claims that Trump got Putin to send agents to poison the Democratic team? :haha:

Bernie is a sell out.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/Obama-four-more-years.jpg



If Hillary is elected that is exactly what we will get.

[Bilge_Rat]

As to what would happen if a presidential candidate died before the election or a president-elect died before being sworn in, the Constitution is silent:



Article II, section 1

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section1

since it is an indirect election, i.e. 1) voters elect "Electors" who then 2) vote for a President and Vice-President, I would think Electors would be free to choose whomever they want without any constraints. However, in practice, I presume they would vote the Vice-President in as President and someone else, probably the ranking Democrat or Republican in Congress as Vice-President.

So if something should happen to mrs. Clinton, you would probably get President Tim Kaine and Vice-President Nancy Pelosi.

[Oberon]

http://humerusonline.com/humerusblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ZOMREAG001.jpg

[August]

Has pneumonia, a contagious disease, hides the fact and tries to infect children.

http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-little-girl-575x767.jpg

[Platapus]

Has pneumonia, a contagious disease, hides the fact and tries to infect children.



Not every type of pneumonia is contagious. While some strains are highly contagious, there are many more common strains that are not very contagious at all.

[Armistead]

hillary is obviously having spells or events related to some neurological problem...dr. drew spelled it out....she's getting worse and i don't see how she can perform being potus, not in todays world.

[Nippelspanner]

Not every type of pneumonia is contagious. While some strains are highly contagious, there are many more common strains that are not very contagious at all.
Pneumonia is mostly contagious though.
But as long as I don't know her exact medical situation I won't blame her for "mindlessly infecting others" - when maybe she isn't.

I leave that to the blind haters who pick on everything they can find. :03:

hillary is obviously having spells or events related to some neurological problem...dr. drew spelled it out....she's getting worse and i don't see how she can perform being potus, not in todays world.I pointed out her obvious medical issues a while ago after finding a video that investigated her issues a little closer.
It wasn't taken serious.
Now we're all surprised...

[Platapus]

hillary is obviously having spells or events related to some neurological problem...dr. drew spelled it out....she's getting worse and i don't see how she can perform being potus, not in todays world.


It is amazing how these doctors can diagnose her without even an examination.

Why do I waste my time going to my doctor's office then.

[Platapus]

It's starting to look like two football teams playing in the Super Bowl and neither team is yours :yep:

It has been this way for me since even before the primaries.

It has been a race to the bottom of the barrel.

[Onkel Neal]

https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14333040_550515708477766_3539563329502201960_n.jpg ?oh=ad63d404eda1e20396d9e16e26b98c8d&oe=5870A172

[em2nought]

https://i.imgur.com/t5NE3np.jpg

Cinderella might make it to the ball after all! :D

The have some stuff left's VS the have some of your stuff already's, but want it all.

[Gray Lensman]

Slightly off topic, here! (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/12/sniper-takes-out-isis-executioner-from-mile-away.html)

but the comment section has various political remariks

I especially like the comment!:

B L O N D I E

(Good, Bad, and the Ugly) for those who might not get it

[Mr Quatro]

Good thing Hillary wasn't a veteran ... it would be December before she could get an appointment :D

That was a photo op set up in New York with the little girl to make Hillary look good ... remember she was in the Obama cabinet when they came up with the talking points excuse for Benghazi.

This 911 event accident sounds like talking points with the real reason coming out in a few more days ... :yep:

[vienna]

To quote Trump: "I called it." Trump has begun the crabbing and whining about the running of the debates:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-no-debate-moderators-165229396.html

I still feel there is a very strong possibility there won't be a second or third match. He's setting the framework to weasel out and blame everyone else for the failure, or, as it could be called, "Trump Classic"...




<O>

[Oberon]

To quote Trump: "I called it." Trump has begun the crabbing and whining about the running of the debates:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-no-debate-moderators-165229396.html

I still feel there is a very strong possibility there won't be a second or third match. He's setting the framework to weasel out and blame everyone else for the failure, or, as it could be called, "Trump Classic"...




<O>

But at least he doesn't have pneumonia...I mean that would just be terrible.

[August]

But at least he doesn't have pneumonia...I mean that would just be terrible.

It's not that she has pneumonia, it's that she tried to conceal it by lying. That seems to be her default response to just about anything.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hillarys-allergy-to-transparency/

[Oberon]

It's not that she has pneumonia, it's that she tried to conceal it by lying. That seems to be her default response to just about anything.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hillarys-allergy-to-transparency/

It's hardly something that's lacking in any politicians arsenal, and lying over a bout of pneumonia is hardly the national scandal that it seems to have become. She probably figured that she'd work through it and it would be fought off with medication and such, heck, she's gone on record as saying herself that she didn't think that it would be such a big thing. It's Pneumonia, not Ebola. Now, the whole Benghazi thing, that's a bit more of a reasonable thing to be making a fuss over, even if it's already been done to death...but this? Quite frankly it's rubbish.

[Onkel Neal]

We don't even know she has pneumonia. First it was nothing, then it was allergies...then it was overheating (on a day where the temp was a scorching 80(26))....

...one thing the Clinton critics are 100% correct on is the contempt Hillary has for honesty and transparency.

.... I am not a Trump supporter but I don't understand anyone who makes excuses for Hillary.

[em2nought]

Pneumonia my @ss, Hillary needed more help into that Limo than President Reagan needed with a partially collapsed lung, and a bullet an inch from his heart.
https://sgrumbleoutloud.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ronald_reagan26_t607.jpg

[Betonov]

In Hillarys defence, Reagans body was flooded with adreanalin after he was shot, same for his body guards.
She was exhausted, illness, heat or just age, an exhausted person will always be a looooot less energetic than a wounded person on adreanalin.
Thats the role of adreanalin anyway, to keep you fighting or fleeing danger.

[Gray Lensman]

To keep it clear... I'm from the basket of "Deplorables"

but years ago I had a case of Pneumonia for days and didn't realize it myself. I just slowly lost my energy over several days until I got home one night from work and literally collapsed just like Hillary. It wasn't until I was rushed to the hospital and properly diagnosed with an X-ray confirmation that I found out what my issue was.

I didn't see any news notification that Hillary had been to a hospital to see what was wrong and she probably didn't want the public to find out from any such hospital visit because she's so secretive about everything anyhow... also explains going to Chelsea's house instead of directly to the hospital and then they noticed that it was too serious not to really find out what was dragging her down.

Regardless of my total dislike of her and her overwhelming tendency to lie first, I can absolutely relate to how she could finally suddenly collapse after days of winding down with coughing fits.

edit> I've also experience 2 collapsed lung episodes back in the early 80s (1st one led to cold turkey smoking cessation from 3 packs/day to 0 overnight), which is what Reagan's most serious complication was when he was shot. It too (a collapsed lung) is not immediately effective/noticeable, much like pneumonia, so with the adrenalin overcoming the shock of the shot itself, but missing his heart it's not surprising that he was able to move so quickly into his waiting limousine.

[Mr Quatro]

I want to think well of her, but I am afraid the next shoe is going to fall and my concern for her would've all been for naught.

I have also had pneumonia ... I thought it was just a cold, just the sniffles, but the cough got worse and before you know it it was pneumonia, but it lasted for three weeks with just store bought cold meds.

But what about her bug eyes and her coughing spells that last for long periods of time and her blood clots and her falling down before and her special eye glasses and her adversion to telling the truth about running for cover while being shot at and then covering it up by saying that she says a million things everyday.

Does not all add up to a case of pneumonia and if it is pneumonia ... what kind is it? They have already said it is not contagious, but several staff members have it too.

I want to believe her I really do, but Hillary Clinton is starting to sound like my ex-wife and I don't even want to here her voice again lol

One more thought what if she drops out which seems very unlikely ... who could step in to replace her and run against Donald Trump?

Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or someone else?

[August]

...lying over a bout of pneumonia is hardly the national scandal that it seems to have become.

So you don't see a pattern here at all? To me it shows her automatic reflex to any situation is to lie, not a good trait in a President. Too bad her secretiveness doesn't extend to protecting classified information.

[AVGWarhawk]

We don't even know she has pneumonia. First it was nothing, then it was allergies...then it was overheating (on a day where the temp was a scorching 80(26))....

...one thing the Clinton critics are 100% correct on is the contempt Hillary has for honesty and transparency.

.... I am not a Trump supporter but I don't understand anyone who makes excuses for Hillary.


Hillary did not want to be at the memorial. Her daughter was a few blocks with grand baby. Hillary went to her daughters apartment. If she as ill the doctors would be the first choice. Further, it was a hell of a thing for the media to be distracted by this nonsense on 9/11. Completely took away from the day and those that this day really affected.

[mapuc]

This Clinton's illness issue have once again recalled something I have noticed

Depending on who much a person is against a candidate-thou more this person believes in made-up stories about their candidate.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Hillary did not want to be at the memorial. Her daughter was a few blocks with grand baby. Hillary went to her daughters apartment. If she as ill the doctors would be the first choice. Further, it was a hell of a thing for the media to be distracted by this nonsense on 9/11. Completely took away from the day and those that this day really affected.

Those are my thoughts/suspicions also :yep:

[Oberon]

So you don't see a pattern here at all? To me it shows her automatic reflex to any situation is to lie, not a good trait in a President. Too bad her secretiveness doesn't extend to protecting classified information.

Some would say that's the key trait in any politician that has existed since the job was created. :hmmm: To be honest, whoever you vote into the White House for next year is going to lie, they're going to lie a lot, probably cheat and most likely profit themselves over the people they're supposed to serve.
I'd just tend to go with the one that doesn't act like a five year old. :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

I just viewed the video of Hillary being "assisted into the van". She was flat out ready to hit the pavement if it was not for 4-5 people holding her up. She should have gone to the hospital and not her daughters. However, a hospital visit would probably be more damning to her campaign.

[Oberon]

However, a hospital visit would probably be more damning to her campaign.

Bingo, she knew that any trips to the hospital before or immediately after this event would just be fuel to the media fire and hoped that she could just muddle on through it, but sadly it doesn't always work that way. Bit ironic really considering the whole thing with Trumps doctor a while back, but that's life for you, it has a good sense of irony.

[AVGWarhawk]

Bingo, she knew that any trips to the hospital before or immediately after this event would just be fuel to the media fire and hoped that she could just muddle on through it, but sadly it doesn't always work that way. Bit ironic really considering the whole thing with Trumps doctor a while back, but that's life for you, it has a good sense of irony.

Can we say at her age, that a constant whirlwind of running around the country will catch up to you sooner or later? Although Trump is doing the same I would think both feel it at the end of the day. Heck, I'm 51 and get wiped out some days. Further, the media is rabid for something 24/7. It never stops. If either one farts and it leans to the left or right we will hear about it. But, I guess if you are going to actively look to become president then one should be ready to take on the challenge of being on the spot 24/7.

[Oberon]

Can we say at her age, that a constant whirlwind of running around the country will catch up to you sooner or later? Although Trump is doing the same I would think both feel it at the end of the day. Heck, I'm 51 and get wiped out some days. Further, the media is rabid for something 24/7. It never stops. If either one farts and it leans to the left or right we will hear about it. But, I guess if you are going to actively look to become president then one should be ready to take on the challenge of being on the spot 24/7.

Age probably does work against you in this era of 24 hour news and rapid response times. Should that be a limitation of the job? I couldn't say, other Presidents have held the role at an older age, but that was in an earlier age when life wasn't so fast and vicious. I know there are a lot of aids and advisors to help prevent information overload and paralysis, but as Truman put it 'The buck stops here', ultimately the President has to give the go/no-go to any policy coming out of the White House.
Well...that's the theory anyway. :ping:

[AVGWarhawk]

Age probably does work against you in this era of 24 hour news and rapid response times. Should that be a limitation of the job? I couldn't say, other Presidents have held the role at an older age, but that was in an earlier age when life wasn't so fast and vicious. I know there are a lot of aids and advisors to help prevent information overload and paralysis, but as Truman put it 'The buck stops here', ultimately the President has to give the go/no-go to any policy coming out of the White House.
Well...that's the theory anyway. :ping:

I believe Trump is the oldest to run for president. Others who became president went into their 70's. Reagan being one of those. His age, from what I understand, did affect the later years. Alzheimer if I'm not mistaken. My father was quick as whip up until his death(74) but physically was not capable of much of anything. Truthfully I'm amazed at both of them for the daily grind they subject themselves too.

[eddie]

If Trump is elected President, know who will get really excited about building a wall on their southern border?................Canada!!!

[Catfish]

If Trump is elected President, know who will get really excited about building a wall on their southern border?................Canada!!!

:haha:
But they have planes ... :hmmm:

[Oberon]

I believe Trump is the oldest to run for president. Others who became president went into their 70's. Reagan being one of those. His age, from what I understand, did affect the later years. Alzheimer if I'm not mistaken. My father was quick as whip up until his death(74) but physically was not capable of much of anything. Truthfully I'm amazed at both of them for the daily grind they subject themselves too.

You find that sometimes with people, either the body or the mind will fail before the other. My Nan is still quite mobile (with a little help) but her mind is rarely where her body is, bless her, but then sometimes you get those who are still quite active in mind and body, it's probably part genetics and part lifestyle. I guess in one respect that is an advantage that Hilary would have, she already has a pretty good idea of the stresses and workload of the job, a lot more so than Trump, since she was First-Lady for a time and also involved in the Obama administration at a high level. Trump, as an outsider, would only have what others have told him to go on...of course, he wouldn't be the first man to go to the White House with limited experience so it could still work out for him.

:haha:
But they have planes ... :hmmm:

Trust a German to think of a way to get around a fixed fortification. :O::O: :haha:

[Onkel Neal]

Hillary's email hacked and leaked by Russians, again (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-hillary-clinton-pneumonia-mary-schmich-20160913-column.html)

Tuesday, Russian intelligence services released a new batch of top-secret emails from the private server of Hillary Clinton, candidate for president of the United States.

[eddie]

:haha:
But they have planes ... :hmmm:

:haha::haha:

[August]

Some would say that's the key trait in any politician that has existed since the job was created. :hmmm: To be honest, whoever you vote into the White House for next year is going to lie, they're going to lie a lot, probably cheat and most likely profit themselves over the people they're supposed to serve.
I'd just tend to go with the one that doesn't act like a five year old. :hmmm:

If it were just lies of necessity then you might have a point but what Neal and I are talking about here is compulsive lying and secretiveness. She lies about things she doesn't have to lie about, and when she's caught in the lie tries to lie her way out of it. That's acting like a five year old too.

[Oberon]

If it were just lies of necessity then you might have a point but what Neal and I are talking about here is compulsive lying and secretiveness. She lies about things she doesn't have to lie about, and when she's caught in the lie tries to lie her way out of it. That's acting like a five year old too.

I see where you're coming from, but honestly between the two of them I still feel like she is the lesser of two evils. I mean even just a cursory glance at Politifact shows that when it comes to falsehoods, she's still running in second place:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

[Schroeder]

Hillary's email hacked and leaked by Russians, again (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-hillary-clinton-pneumonia-mary-schmich-20160913-column.html)
If the Russians want Trump then you know he shouldn't become president.
I really don't envy you this time. Two clowns running for office. How could that happen?:wah::wah:

[Bilge_Rat]

Hillary's email hacked and leaked by Russians, again (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-hillary-clinton-pneumonia-mary-schmich-20160913-column.html)

good one Neal. :haha:

[Mr Quatro]

Hillary's email hacked and leaked by Russians, again (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-hillary-clinton-pneumonia-mary-schmich-20160913-column.html)

All I got out of that humor is that we are suppose to be calling Hillary, Senator Clinton ha ha and from her own backyard too Chicago.

News media says Senator Clinton will be back on the campaign trail tomorrow :yep:

The camera's will be all over her looking for any signs of distress :o

If Russia is so good at hacking why don't they hack her medical records?

[Gray Lensman]

I wonder what Hillary's excuse will be for this one:

see here! (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/14/those-leaked-colin-powell-emails-are-a-huge-blow-to-clinton-not-trump-commentary.html)

[AVGWarhawk]

I wonder what Hillary's excuse will be for this one:

see here! (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/14/those-leaked-colin-powell-emails-are-a-huge-blow-to-clinton-not-trump-commentary.html)

It does not matter as this is one more nail in the coffin. What I find trifling is the media having headlines that Powell thinks Trump is a disgrace as found in the emails. The bit concerning Hillary was not in the headlines.

The debates are going to be such fun. If Hillary can stay standing. :haha::o

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/5Uqloub.jpg

[Susexx]

About Hillary's health

http://dayonline.ru/public/article/images/73e7f571e83db1663bd32203660908a76e4e888a.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

It does not matter as this is one more nail in the coffin. What I find trifling is the media having headlines that Powell thinks Trump is a disgrace as found in the emails. The bit concerning Hillary was not in the headlines.

The debates are going to be such fun. If Hillary can stay standing. :haha::o

It's becoming more and more apparent that our news media stations on TV at least (I haven't listened to radio talk shows in a long time) are leaning towards their favorites. This shouldn't be so ... they should just report the news not give us their slant on it.

Fox is pro Trump
NBC is pro Clinton
CBS had visible anger at Bush when he ran in 2002
ABC has been fair to both sides
CNN has panels for both sides

I just ignored all of the other warning signs, but now I see it for myself. You can't trust their top executives that control the puppets on TV.

[Betonov]

Even the Daily Show, which was against every side when Jon Stewart hosted, is now so pro-Hillary it's stop being entertaining, no matter how much I love Trump being the target for satire :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

It's becoming more and more apparent that our news media stations on TV at least (I haven't listened to radio talk shows in a long time) are leaning towards their favorites. This shouldn't be so ... they should just report the news not give us their slant on it.

Fox is pro Trump
NBC is pro Clinton
CBS had visible anger at Bush when he ran in 2002
ABC has been fair to both sides
CNN has panels for both sides

I just ignored all of the other warning signs, but now I see it for myself. You can't trust their top executives that control the puppets on TV.

CNN is the Clinton New Network. MSNBC is liberal as it get. Constantly going after Trump. Fox is... well.... Fox. I attempt to stay away from these as it is more opinion journalism than factual news.

[Bilge_Rat]

accusing the media of having a liberal or conservative bias is par for the course, but even I have been shocked at the level of partisanship and lack of objectivity in this election.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Politico are now blatantly anti-Trump. The only site which seems to be keeping some objectivity is Real Clear Politics.

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

The enormous response to my column on the collapse of standards in American journalism was overwhelmingly positive — and also dispiriting.

Among those writing in agreement was a large contingent who said they were not surprised because they had long ago lost all trust in the networks, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

I was also struck by the current and former journalists who expressed distress over the partisan attacks on Donald Trump in their news organizations. A writer who identified himself as a CNN producer called the network “Clinton Campaign Headquarters” and said “it makes me sick.”

Lisa Myers, a respected investigative reporter, writes this: “I spent 33 mostly great years at NBC News and left mid contract partly because of what we are now seeing.

“Sadly, I agree with almost every word of this column . . . about the death of journalism. And they are having so much fun trying to destroy Trump they don’t see the self-destruction. Sickening.”

And Brooke Monroe writes, “As a previous Houston Chronicle reporter, it breaks my heart to see how far journalism has fallen from its watchdog role. You may not change many minds, but you will bring comfort to those shaking their heads at the lunacy. Thank you.”



http://nypost.com/2016/08/24/the-only-question-left-for-hillary-what-else-are-you-hiding/

[AVGWarhawk]

The media is shameless about it.

[Sailor Steve]

The new media are simply slipping back into their old ways. "Just reporting the news" is a fairly recent phenomenon. When the country was founded "newspapers" were printed by the owner himself, and aside from news from the rest of the world being reprinted as brought here by ship the "news" was almost always highly slanted toward the owners favorites.

[Bilge_Rat]

so could FDR have been elected if the media back then had been as intrusive as it is now?

https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/132ed66a96.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

The new media are simply slipping back into their old ways. "Just reporting the news" is a fairly recent phenomenon. When the country was founded "newspapers" were printed by the owner himself, and aside from news from the rest of the world being reprinted as brought here by ship the "news" was almost always highly slanted toward the owners favorites.

I didn't know that ...:hmmm:

Anyone know which news media outlets were against Obama ... all I remember is having to delete a lot of anti-Obama emails that were making the rounds?

But I do remember all the news stations in South Carolina back in 96 that were anti-Bil Clinton ... it was horrible they were calling him baby killer in ads and everything.

Both Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama won the POTUS elections ...

by the way today's polls show a dead heat with Hillary listed at 2 points in front of Trump and it is September 15th.

One cough in the debates could cost her the job, uh? :yep:

[Mr Quatro]

so could FDR have been elected if the media back then had been as intrusive as it is now?


Funny you should bring that up and the answer is clearly "No"

You see FDR died three months after taking office for his fourth term as POTUS, but the truth is that he had cancer all along and knew it, but then again I respect Truman his VP, as one of the best we have had driving himself and his wife back home to Missouri when he left office and without FDR we wouldn't have had Truman.

FDR’s Deadly Secret: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/the-huge-secret-about-fdrs-death/

FDR, died of cancer, a disease that had deleterious effects on his mental as well as physical health. In concealing the cancer from the American people, the authors argue, Roosevelt was “rolling the dice with history”: he won (mostly), but it was a very close run.
By the time his health began seriously declining in the 1940s, Roosevelt was long accustomed to disguising his disability. At 39, 11 years before he was first elected president in 1932, polio left the ambitious politician paralyzed for life from the waist down. FDR took care never to let it show in public. He used a wheelchair in private, but before crowds walked with the help of five-kilogram iron braces fitted to his hips and legs, and he had hand controls in his cars so he could be seen driving. Voters never noticed—or, pinning their hopes on Roosevelt through catastrophic depression and the greatest war in history, never wanted to see—the stage management. During the 1944 campaign, caught in a New York parade during a persistent rainstorm, the president’s open car was several times whisked out of the cavalcade and into a heated garage. Secret Service agents would stretch Roosevelt out on blankets laid on the garage floor, remove all his clothes, towel him dry and rub him down; re-dressed in dry clothes and fortified with a shot of brandy, FDR was soon back in the downpour.
Roosevelt’s health was thus never an election issue, and his physicians’ explanation of his sudden death—caused, in their words, by “a bolt out of the blue,” a massive and unforeseeable stroke brought on by overwork—was accepted by Americans.

and to top it all off Hillary Clinton may have the same problem and just wants to get into the White House before anyone knows it, thereby protecting the USA using her party.

google Hillary and Eleanor and you will find out that Hillary talks to her. Yeah, yeah I know she's dead, but Hillary doesn't.

[AVGWarhawk]

so could FDR have been elected if the media back then had been as intrusive as it is now?



Even then FDR and his handlers realized his physical issue would/could be a problem. From what I understand there as many attempts to hide it.

The recently discovered film clip of President Franklin D. Roosevelt being pushed in a wheelchair, despite showing neither Roosevelt’s face nor the wheelchair, has become an object of considerable public interest. One reason people find the clip so fascinating is that it seems to represent a radically different era in American political life—one in which the president could rely on the press corps to help him hide from the larger public something so glaringly obvious as the fact that he was a paraplegic from having contracted polio at age 39.

Excellent article below:


http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/12/the-myth-of-fdrs-secret-disability/

[Gray Lensman]

I generally watch Fox Business Lou Dobbs, he's obviously pro-Trump but he does try to stay on an even keel with the news. It's getting so you just can't find news without bias anywhere.

[AVGWarhawk]

I generally watch Fox Business Lou Dobbs, he's obviously pro-Trump but he does try to stay on an even keel with the news. It's getting so you just can't find news without bias anywhere.

Lou has a great set of teeth.

[Platapus]

I wonder what Hillary's excuse will be for this one:

see here! (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/14/those-leaked-colin-powell-emails-are-a-huge-blow-to-clinton-not-trump-commentary.html)


STOP THE PRESSES!

You meant to tell me that one politician secretly disliked another politician but praised them in public in order to further a political party's agenda?

I gotta sit down for this one. I don't think that has ever happened in American politics.

[Gray Lensman]

STOP THE PRESSES!

You meant to tell me that one politician secretly disliked another politician but praised them in public in order to further a political party's agenda?

I gotta sit down for this one. I don't think that has ever happened in American politics.

You miss the point... O is their great hero. Hill isn't. Just one more reason for a lot of them to just stay home this time.

[Oberon]

Hilary makes her triumphant return to the public eye after her pneumonia battle to the stirring notes of "I Feel Good" by James Brown...who died in 2006 of pneumonia...


http://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/clintonfacepalm.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

http://mcguff1.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/clintonfacepalm.jpg
Hey buddy, we finally agree on something again!
That was my exact reaction this morning. :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

Hillary's handlers are complete boobs.

[vienna]

I don't know how other states handle voter information publications, but in California, the Secretary of State's office is required to provide each registered voter with a printed booklet with a listing of statewide candidates (with arguments for and against plus rebuttals), a listing of all proposed changes to state law or state constitution, whether as an initiative or legislative referendum (with arguments for and against plus rebuttals), plus legislative analysis of the proposed changes, additions or implementation of existing or new laws (cost analysis and/or impact), plus any other material pertinent to the upcoming election. The booklet for the November 2016 election is more like a volume: the guide is a whopping 224 pages long. In addition to the candidates, this year the voters will decide on 17 different propositions on a variety of subjects:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-voter-guide-november-ballot-20160909-snap-story.html

The state voters guide is in addition to voters' guides put out by the individual counties to inform voters on local issues not covered by the state. It looks like I'm going to have a lot of reading ahead for me...



<O>

[Gray Lensman]

I don't know how other states handle voter information publications, but in California, the Secretary of State's office is required to provide each registered voter with a printed booklet with a listing of statewide candidates (with arguments for and against plus rebuttals), a listing of all proposed changes to state law or state constitution, whether as an initiative or legislative referendum (with arguments for and against plus rebuttals), plus legislative analysis of the proposed changes, additions or implementation of existing or new laws (cost analysis and/or impact), plus any other material pertinent to the upcoming election. The booklet for the November 2016 election is more like a volume: the guide is a whopping 224 pages long. In addition to the candidates, this year the voters will decide on 17 different propositions on a variety of subjects:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-voter-guide-november-ballot-20160909-snap-story.html

The state voters guide is in addition to voters' guides put out by the individual counties to inform voters on local issues not covered by the state. It looks like I'm going to have a lot of reading ahead for me...



<O>

Sounds like a modern replacement for the old time use of mail order catalogues in "out-houses'

[Wolferz]

Oh look Sears has everything!:yeah:

[Torplexed]

Finally, some bumper stickers I can mount on my car with patriotic pride.
http://www.powercallsirens.com/avactis-images/thumb_EverybodySucks_9.jpghttps://img1.etsystatic.com/129/0/10628259/il_680x540.1031175737_pbd3.jpg

[em2nought]

Finally, some bumper stickers I can mount on my car with patriotic pride.
http://www.powercallsirens.com/avactis-images/thumb_EverybodySucks_9.jpghttps://img1.etsystatic.com/129/0/10628259/il_680x540.1031175737_pbd3.jpg
You'll be far less likely to get vandalized or assaulted than someone with a "Trump" sticker at least. :up:

[Oberon]

Had a random thought and took to wikipedia.

A Democratic candidate has not succeeded a Democratic president without the former dying in office since before the Civil War. :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

And Trump is even two years older than her. Not that this qualifies, or speak for or against either candidate. Than 'she' https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Grammar_Nazi_Icon_Text_Bcg.svg/100px-Grammar_Nazi_Icon_Text_Bcg.svg.png:D cannot jus' pick on ol' Sailor Steve!

we need a strong, intelligent, principled, non-politician as President, but it sure ain't Donald Trump. Well at least he's learning from a master...http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/putin-and-trump-riding-one-horse-together-with-naked-chests.jpgbut recently appears to have overshot the mark...narcissism being his Achilles heel soda speke :03:Had a random thought and took to wikipedia.

A Democratic candidate has not succeeded a Democratic president without the former dying in office since before the Civil War. :hmmm: NOPE! both #9, William Henry Harrison, 1841, and #12, Zachary Taylor, 1849, were Whigs, not Democrats. A pity about Harrison; he was born an English subject-the last president to be so.

[Oberon]

NOPE! both #9, William Henry Harrison, 1841, and #12, Zachary Taylor, 1849, were Whigs, not Democrats. A pity about Harrison; he was born an English subject-the last president to be so.

But Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were Democrats :03:

[Aktungbby]

But Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were Democrats :03:
AHHH I focused on the dying part....I think...I avoid cold buttermilk and cherries to this day!:Kaleun_Cheers:

[em2nought]

Where is Hillary? Not at any rally in Greensboro NC, unless she's a vampire, because she's not appearing on any camera phones as she walks in front of all of the people. Check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCP3HIhQgLI

[Mr Quatro]

Had a random thought and took to wikipedia.

A Democratic candidate has not succeeded a Democratic president without the former dying in office since before the Civil War. :hmmm:

That data is bigger than it looks ... Hillary will either break that record or keep it in tact.

My soul does not need more of her excuses and two faced lies, but I repeat my earlier thoughts ... one of them will be able to say, "I told your so" in 2020.

[Mr Quatro]

Where is Hillary? Not at any rally in Greensboro NC, unless she's a vampire, because she's not appearing on any camera phones as she walks in front of all of the people. Check it out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCP3HIhQgLI

I watched it between football plays, but I don't know or understand what I saw ... I normally don't get sucker baited to watch the other views on the side, but this time I did.

Turn down the sound and watch Hillary ... she's is not normal in this press conference for sure.

Sleepy or on drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZyQC2Mr5k

I also see lot of hatred for her from these people ...

Probably the same for those against Trump, uh?

Too much hate we need more wisdom ... back to footnall for me:yep:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://fortune.com/2016/09/14/donald-trump-economy-president/

[Onkel Neal]

I watched it between football plays, but I don't know or understand what I saw ... I normally don't get sucker baited to watch the other views on the side, but this time I did.

Turn down the sound and watch Hillary ... she's is not normal in this press conference for sure.

Sleepy or on drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZyQC2Mr5k

I also see lot of hatred for her from these people ...

Probably the same for those against Trump, uh?

Too much hate we need more wisdom ... back to footnall for me:yep:

For me, I can actually stand listening to her when she's restrained like this, and not in bombastic-mode.

[vienna]

For me, I can actually stand listening to her when she's restrained like this, and not in bombastic-mode.

For me, that is true of all political candidates; when they get loud and, as you say, bombastic, it all seems to be more style over substance, sort of the whole "Big Lie" idea: it doesn't matter if what you say is true or not, as long as you say it loudly and with emphasis. I tend to get suspicious when a politician has to raise their voice to get their point across, almost like their argument has to be buttressed by the volume rather than reason or logic. TR had it right when he said "Speak softly, and carry a big stick"; if you come out bellicose from the start, perhaps it is because you really have no valid argument and you also only have a small stick...



<O>

[Oberon]

you also only have a small stick...
<O>

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/sites/foxnews.com.on-air.the-five/files/styles/article_photo/public/field/image/donald_trump_oreilly.jpg

TRIGGERED

[em2nought]

The press is reporting nothing new that could shake up the race in the news today. :hmmm:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ofHwvCZhzEw/hqdefault.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

The press is reporting nothing new that could shake up the race in the news today. :hmmm:



https://dakiniland.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/slow-news-day.jpg

Reported that the farmer was Old Donald Trump ... I wouldn't call it that slow :o

https://1pumplane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/2011-08-16-slow-news-day-in-swindon.jpg

[Oberon]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wuavnjNVZOw/Ul-SRc-4_oI/AAAAAAAAK-0/Gg9QUiKxDyg/s640/how+to+roast+a+marshmellow.png

[Platapus]

I wonder how many people here are gonna watch the mass debates on Monday?

Normally, I would not cross the street to listen to a politician talk.

But on one hand this one might be amusing
But on the other hand, I despise both candidates
But on the other hand... no that's the hand that is holding my beer

I think will pass on this one.

[vienna]

Have you seen a doctor about that whole third hand matter?...




<O>

[Platapus]

Disclosure: I am not a CPA, nor to I play one on TV and it has been a long time since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. But some of you may have stated a night or two and can explain this to me.

First some background.



Prior to 2009, the Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation legally reported foreign donations to their foundation. So they clearly understood their legal obligation to report foreign donations.
When Hillary became Secretary of State in 2009, she made a public promise that during her term as SoS, the foundation would not accept any foreign donations.
During her term as SoS (2009-2013), the foundation did not report any foreign donations on their IRS form 990.
Unless you have missed current events, the foundation was caught to the tune of $20,000,000 in foreign donations given to the foundation during Hillary's term as SoS.

These facts are not being contested by the Clinton Foundation and there is ample evidence of all of this. To make amends, the Clinton foundation has resubmitted their 2009-2013 IRS form 990 reflecting the actual truth of the 20 million over the four years. Nothing encourages a corporation and a politician more to obey the law and do what is right then being caught.


Since the Clinton foundation is not contesting the 20 million, and has already submitted signed forms showing the foreign donations, it appears that Hillary lied. Shocking breaking news, I know.


It is all well and good that, after being caught, the foundation is deciding to resubmit their forms with the truth. But I asked myself..


"Self, Every year between 2009 and 2013, the accounting books for the foundation had to balance. What happend to that $20 million?"


I can think of three explanations


1. The foreign donations were deposited in the foundation's account, but the deposit was recorded as a domestic donation. This would make the books balance, but concealing foreign donations is one of those accounting mistakes that you are really not allowed to make and is considered naughty.


2. The foreign donations were deposited in the foundation's account, but no record was made of the deposit in the books. Since there was no deposit record, there was no need to report this on the Form 990. Unfortunately, this would make the books not balance to the amount of $20 million.... unless the books were cooked which is naughty.


3. The foreign donations were never deposited in the foundation's account so there was no need to report foreign donations and the books would balance. This means that the donations were fraudulently diverted from the foundation, which is also naughty.


Am I missing another explanation?

The foundation has admitted that they failed to report $20 million in foreign donations over a four year period. They are not contesting this.

Forget about Hillary lying. She will lie again tomorrow, so don't worry about missing anything. But that nagging question about the books being balanced and the "forgotten" $20 Million just does not add up, if you pardon the accounting pun.

Am I missing another explanation? Is there any other way that during these periods the books could balance at the same time the foundation was concealing $20 Million in foreign donations on their form 990. The numbers have to match.

[Oberon]

Oh, there's probably a foreign dictators worth of corruption going on there, just as there is on the other side and meanwhile America burns in the middle.

It's like a grand re-enactment of Rome, perhaps we can hire the Mexicans to play the Visigoths? :yeah:

[vienna]

Disclosure: I am not a CPA, nor to I play one on TV and it has been a long time since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. But some of you may have stated a night or two and can explain this to me.

...


I can think of three explanations


1. The foreign donations were deposited in the foundation's account, but the deposit was recorded as a domestic donation. This would make the books balance, but concealing foreign donations is one of those accounting mistakes that you are really not allowed to make and is considered naughty.


2. The foreign donations were deposited in the foundation's account, but no record was made of the deposit in the books. Since there was no deposit record, there was no need to report this on the Form 990. Unfortunately, this would make the books not balance to the amount of $20 million.... unless the books were cooked which is naughty.


3. The foreign donations were never deposited in the foundation's account so there was no need to report foreign donations and the books would balance. This means that the donations were fraudulently diverted from the foundation, which is also naughty.


Am I missing another explanation?

The foundation has admitted that they failed to report $20 million in foreign donations over a four year period. They are not contesting this.

Forget about Hillary lying. She will lie again tomorrow, so don't worry about missing anything. But that nagging question about the books being balanced and the "forgotten" $20 Million just does not add up, if you pardon the accounting pun.

Am I missing another explanation? Is there any other way that during these periods the books could balance at the same time the foundation was concealing $20 Million in foreign donations on their form 990. The numbers have to match.

The problem is you are making the assumption accounting is a science and not an art: the arcane world of accounting is replete with myriad ways to 'bend' fact to meet 'form'; there is a real reason the term "creative accounting" exists. As a former bean counter, I can assure you the higher you go on the economic food chain, the further you get from reality when it comes to accounting. Way back, in some long forgotten post, I gave an example related to the way the Reagan Administration was able to make their 'economic miracle' seem greater than it was by simply reclassifying certain entries in certain accounts so as to pad the bottom lines and make the results look as if there was real improvement in the economy, a sort of 'Potemkin accounting'. All of your scenarios are possible, and then some; however, the books will balance regardless since it is just a matter what you call the entry; the amount never really goes missing, its just called something else; this goes on all the time in the financial world and, as I pointed out, the farther up you go, the more 'creative' it becomes. I can assure you if there was a USD $20 Million gap somewhere, the IRS would have jumped on it; the money is somewhere in there, its just probably called something else and/or recorded by some other name. The problem is not the math of the accounting, its the nature of the laws that allow for such creativity and, remember, those laws are enacted by the very same people who tend to profit from the obscurity of the laws...

If it makes you feel any better, the Donald has also got the creativity bug when it come to his own Trump Foundation and it 'charitable' activities; this is a perfect example of the whole matter:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/21/donald-trump-foundation-irs/

Here's the Washington Post article that broke the story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

There have been a number of other revelations about the Trump Foundation since the first story; the real extent of Trump's misuse is still being exposed and may grow before a final tally is made; the Post has also been trying to confirm Trump's alleged charitable giving with dismal results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/

Trump's big problem here is he has left a very obvious trail of deceit and equivocation and the IRS will probably have little problem going after both him and his foundation, so, win or lose the election, his tax problems, and possible criminal prosecution, loom ahead...



<O>

[vienna]

An interesting investigative report from Rolling Stone magazine about the GOP-backed effort to weed out alleged wide-spread voter fraud:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

I'm no highly certified expert on databases, but I have created and administered a fair share in my time and this has got to be the worst hack job I have heard of; just the basic premise and structure of the database and the inability (or unwillingness) to address the flaws in the data would get anybody else fired in the real world...

But, I guess, as long as it keeps voters from an opposing side the free exercise of one of the rights of citizenship, it must be worth the deceit and malfeasance...



<O>

[August]

What happend to that $20 million?"

I got a feeling that under President Clinton we'd be asking where the money went fairly often...

[Gray Lensman]

An interesting investigative report from Rolling Stone magazine about the GOP-backed effort to weed out alleged wide-spread voter fraud:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890

I'm no highly certified expert on databases, but I have created and administered a fair share in my time and this has got to be the worst hack job I have heard of; just the basic premise and structure of the database and the inability (or unwillingness) to address the flaws in the data would get anybody else fired in the real world...

But, I guess, as long as it keeps voters from an opposing side the free exercise of one of the rights of citizenship, it must be worth the deceit and malfeasance...



<O>

I guess if the left keeps lying long enough about voter fraud not occuring and not being documented then everyone will believe their fairy tale innocence NOT!

Part1 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216)

Part2 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2215)

Part3 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2214)
.

[Mr Quatro]

I guess if the left keeps lying long enough about voter fraud not occuring and not being documented then everyone will believe their fairy tale innocence NOT!

Part1 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216)

Part2 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2215)

Part3 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2214)
.

The only place voter fraud will be effective is in the swing vote states of Ohio and Florida of which you have to win in order to win. Remember the 2000 election with Gore winning every major city with Bush winning all of the rural areas? Gore even lost his home state of Tenn.

Jeb Bush by the way ordered 10,000 absentee voting slips before the election. I bet his hands were tired not to mention his tongue from mailing them all in lol

Thursday, November 9 http://www.authentichistory.com/1993-2000/3-2000election/3-dispute/
Al Gore's team requested hand counts of ballots in four counties in Florida, citing reports of voting irregularities and voter confusion over the ballot layout in Palm Beach. This would turn out to be the most crucial decision of the Gore campaign, though that wouldn't be evident until more than a month later. The four counties were: Volusia, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward. These counties leaned heavily toward the Democratic Party, and they all used the older punch card ballot, a design much more likely than others to produce so-called "undervotes"--votes that, when put through the machines, did not register any vote for the Presidential election. The Gore campaign believed that more votes were there for Al Gore than were counted by the machine counting process.The Bush campaign threatened to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico (where Gore narrowly won) if Gore did not withdraw his challenges.

[mapuc]

The last few weeks I have been wondering I don't know how to explain it

It has something to do with these survey or Gallups I think you also call them.

I'm a right wing person(not that right wing though) And most of my friends are from that political area-Many of them are for or supporting Trump, while some don't like him.

I have also friends I have through playing games. These friends are picked because of playing and not because of my political stand point. I have noticed that none of them are for Clinton, some of them are pro Trump.

According to these political survey/Gallup at least one or two of these American friends should be pro-Clinton

How big are the chances that I pick about 5-10 Americans friends and none of them are pro Clinton ?

Markus

[Von Due]

The last few weeks I have been wondering I don't know how to explain it

It has something to do with these survey or Gallups I think you also call them.

I'm a right wing person(not that right wing though) And most of my friends are from that political area-Many of them are for or supporting Trump, while some don't like him.

I have also friends I have through playing games. These friends are picked because of playing and not because of my political stand point. I have noticed that none of them are for Clinton, some of them are pro Trump.

According to these political survey/Gallup at least one or two of these American friends should be pro-Clinton

How big are the chances that I pick about 5-10 Americans friends and none of them are pro Clinton ?

Markus

In the latest polls, it is a really close race between the two so I would think your chances would greatly depend on where you choose to look for friends to pick. At complete random, roughly 50%. If you choose to look in areas with a high density of Clinton supporters, much lower than 50%. In Trump territory, much higher. Another thing that this touches upon is, these surveys are rarely if ever completely neutral so the accuracy should be questioned by default. Both camps would love to see their candidate higher up and statistics have a suit of ways to make it look that way.

[mapuc]

In the latest polls, it is a really close race between the two so I would think your chances would greatly depend on where you choose to look for friends to pick. At complete random, roughly 50%. If you choose to look in areas with a high density of Clinton supporters, much lower than 50%. In Trump territory, much higher. Another thing that this touches upon is, these surveys are rarely if ever completely neutral so the accuracy should be questioned by default. Both camps would love to see their candidate higher up and statistics have a suit of ways to make it look that way.

I would have said a majority among those I have picked due to my political standpoint is for trump. But when it comes to playing games I would have said some are for Trump and some are for Clinton, but none of them are pro Clinton. Remember I didn't pick my game-friend due to their political stand point.

And that's what I'm wondering about-that I got 5-10 Americans game friends and none of them are pro-Clinton.

Markus

[Oberon]

Ted Cruz looks set to flush the remainder of his integrity down the toilet and join Team Trump.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/srcstc.gif

[August]

Ted Cruz looks set to flush the remainder of his integrity down the toilet and join Team Trump.

I see it more as a very belated realization of the danger that Clinton presents to the republic.

[Oberon]

I see it more as a very belated realization of the danger that Clinton presents to the republic.

I think that's the least of your problems coming.

[Torplexed]

Ted Cruz looks set to flush the remainder of his integrity down the toilet and join Team Trump.




I guess it took months of soul-searching, but then finally Senator Ted Cruz remembered he doesn't have one. :D

[Gray Lensman]

I guess it took months of soul-searching, but then finally Senator Ted Cruz remembered he doesn't have one. :D

Nah, he just didn't want to end up irrelevant like George Romney (Mitt's dad) after Goldwater's nomination. When he refused to endorse Goldwater, from that day forward he was shunned by most of the party and his political career was dead. I'm pretty sure this is too late for Teddy boy.

[Oberon]

I guess it took months of soul-searching, but then finally Senator Ted Cruz remembered he doesn't have one. :D

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

After all the things that Trump called him and his family, well...if I were Cruz I wouldn't have endorsed Trump. I guess the desire for retaining power is that strong though.

[eddie]

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

After all the things that Trump called him and his family, well...if I were Cruz I wouldn't have endorsed Trump. I guess the desire for retaining power is that strong though.

No Oberon, it boils down to a threat from the pinhead chairman of the RNC. The other candidates who ran against Trump and lost, had better endorse him or else they could have problems with the RNC in the next elections. I would have told that dork where to stick it myself,lol I mean what kind of name is Reince Priebus? :haha:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-party-penalties-former-gop-trump-endorsement/

[Gray Lensman]

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

After all the things that Trump called him and his family, well...if I were Cruz I wouldn't have endorsed Trump. I guess the desire for retaining power is that strong though.

Tit-for-Tat.

If Cruz surrogates had not started it by maligning Melania, things might have been different. This followed the lying crap about Ben Carson dropping out of the race in Iowa. Seems like everything done by Cruz surrogates was somehow not Cruz's fault? Bah, if that was the case. why didn't he himself come out swinging against the perpetrators? He didn't because, he thought he could remain above it all.

However, that said, I don't see him gaining anything in the future, electability wise. He cooked his goose at the convention... Oh they'll be some upper level Republicans that will want to give him a chance, but the Republican common voter electorate won't. Same thing happened to George Romney after he refused to endorse Goldwater. All he (Romney) could get from then on were political appointments. His electability support was shot down the crapper.

[Platapus]

I find my self in a lose-lose situation concerning this election.

I don't want Trump to be president so I will have to vote for Clinton.

I don't want Clinton to be president so I will have to vote for Trump.


I don't want Trump to be president so I will have to vote for Clinton.

I don't want Clinton to be president so I will have to vote for Trump.


And the circle of despair and depression continues.

How about a third party?

A third party still has practically no chance of getting the office, but maybe I should vote for a third party to get their numbers up so that eventually, in the future a third party may become viable.

But If I vote for a third party, my vote may actually benefit Trump getting elected.

If I vote for a third party, my vote may actually benefit Clinton getting elected.

And the circle of despair and depression continues.

How about not voting at all. I can't see that happening with me. To me voting is a responsibility. But more importantly

If I don't vote, my inaction may benefit Trump being elected

If I don't vote, my inaction may benefit Clinton being elected.

And the circle of despair and depression continues.

I find myself in a position where there are no good choices, even not making a choice is a bad choice.

Thanks a lot, RNC and DNC, for putting me in a lose lose position. :nope:

https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-X_bC0NKaJc0%2FTsMHTMBNxJI%2FAAAAAAAAAPE%2FKRW9SNvY mws%2Fs1600%2F442230-Cartoon-Black-And-White-Outline-Design-Of-A-Man-Stuck-Between-A-Rock-And-A-Hard-Place-Poster-Art-Print.jpg&sp=b7ae02a37df7289274817d60e98889b7

[August]

It's not all loose loose.

Supreme court picks.

Trump will nominate strict constitutionalists, Clinton will nominate judges who would legislate from the bench. In this vital area the choice is clear.

[Bilge_Rat]

If it makes you feel any better, the Donald has also got the creativity bug when it come to his own Trump Foundation and it 'charitable' activities; this is a perfect example of the whole matter:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/21/donald-trump-foundation-irs/

Here's the Washington Post article that broke the story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

There have been a number of other revelations about the Trump Foundation since the first story; the real extent of Trump's misuse is still being exposed and may grow before a final tally is made; the Post has also been trying to confirm Trump's alleged charitable giving with dismal results:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-charity-donations/

Trump's big problem here is he has left a very obvious trail of deceit and equivocation and the IRS will probably have little problem going after both him and his foundation, so, win or lose the election, his tax problems, and possible criminal prosecution, loom ahead...



<O>

In RL, I advise charities on tax law and the only thing the Wapo stories prove is that the journalist who wrote them is clueless as to how the law works.

There is nothing reported in there which is technically illegal. Private Foundations are required to use their funds on charitable activities, which means making gifts to other charities. In all cases reported by Wapo, 100% of the funds were paid to another charity, so they were are legal transactions.

Now did Trump have an ulterior motive behind some of these transactions? yes, but that is how most of these private foundations are operated. Do you think the Clintons don't plan their gifts based on how they can get the maximum political or monetary benefit out of them? The fact that you may have another motive behind the gift does not turn into an illigal donation or "Self Dealing" as long as the donation meets the other criterias under the law.

Self Dealing is when a principal appropriates assets for his own personal benefit, for example, having the foundation make an interest free loan to a related business or pay excessive salaries to the principal and his relatives or buying goods and services at inflated prices, etc. None of what Wapo reports is "Self Dealing".

Now based on the Wapo stories, they went through all of the hundred donations done yearly by the Trump Foundation and this is the only questionable transactions they could find? If true, it makes the Trump Foundation one of the cleanest charity in North America, I doubt the IRS will even bother investigating.

[Platapus]

Or trump will just nominate people who agree with him and will give more money to big businesses.

I see nothing in Trump that would indicate he has any "constitutionalism" feelings beyond what is best for his and his buddy's business dealings.

Both sides "legislate from the bench" when it is convenient for their side and deride the other side when it is not.

[Oberon]

Or trump will just nominate people who agree with him and will give more money to big businesses.

I see nothing in Trump that would indicate he has any "constitutionalism" feelings beyond what is best for his and his buddy's business dealings.

Both sides "legislate from the bench" when it is convenient for their side and deride the other side when it is not.


So....Canada? :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

^ Costa Rica! https://internationalliving.com/2013/06/where-to-live-in-costa-rica-five-top-expat-havens/ (https://internationalliving.com/2013/06/where-to-live-in-costa-rica-five-top-expat-havens/) https://media.giphy.com/media/2oVfyRHk1EuRy/giphy.gif

[Gray Lensman]

<snip

I find my self in a lose-lose situation concerning this election.

Thanks a lot, RNC and DNC, for putting me in a lose lose position. :nope:

<snip>


Actually if you watched the news, The DNC did put you in a lose position, but the RNC had nothing to do with Trump's position. It was millions of primary voters who actually had a say who was gonna head the GOP ticket, quite unlike the DNC. Now you might disagree with those millions of primary voters, but the fact remains he was chosen by primary voters over the wishes of the establishment Republicans. I guess those millions of primary voters just happened to put you in a lose position.

[August]

Or trump will just nominate people who agree with him and will give more money to big businesses.

I see nothing in Trump that would indicate he has any "constitutionalism" feelings beyond what is best for his and his buddy's business dealings.

Both sides "legislate from the bench" when it is convenient for their side and deride the other side when it is not.

Well seeing as how he's already published a list of those he'd consider nominating i'd say their big business links are easy enough to check. What I understand is they are all strict constitutionalists. Absent anything more than supposition (which is all we got from clinton in this area) that's good enough for me.

[Onkel Neal]

https://pics.onsizzle.com/have-you-noticed-ailthe-liberals-are-threatening-to-move-here-2450690.png

[Oberon]

I'm sure that America will get the President that it deserves. :yep:

[Platapus]

I'm sure that America will get the President that it deserves. :yep:

Sadly, Yes.

Our only hope is that our country is stronger than any one president. We survived Bush and Obama. I am sure we can survive Trump/Clinton.

Sometimes survival is all you can hope for. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Sadly, Yes.

Our only hope is that our country is stronger than any one president. We survived Bush and Obama. I am sure we can survive Trump/Clinton.

Sometimes survival is all you can hope for. :hmmm:

Sad that it has to be that way. Something is gonna give sometime, and I don't think that it'll be pretty when it does.

[vienna]

I guess if the left keeps lying long enough about voter fraud not occuring and not being documented then everyone will believe their fairy tale innocence NOT!

Part1 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216)

Part2 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2215)

Part3 (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2214)
.

The issue has never been the existence of voter fraud; the existence is a solid fact; what is in question is the extent and the means of preventing voter fraud. As long as there are non-standardized voting systems, there will be some sort of and degree of voter fraud; in, fact, even if there were a standardized voting system, someone would still find a way to "game" the system. I am a bit ambivalent when it comes to standardized voting, with the concept of a nationwide voter ID and other some such method. There are a great many voters who view national IDs with suspicion and, maybe, with some good cause. However, other than some form of nationwide standardization with some form of national ID, there are very few options. The good part of the current situation si the total extent of documented voter fraud is so small a percentage of the entire voter pools as to be very much statistically insignificant..

The sort of laws and systems, as described in the Rolling Stone article is definitely not the answer: to create a system that would deprive far more honest citizens of their Constitutional right to vote than would catch and prevent fraud is inherently unfair, unconstitutional, and very un-American in concept and execution. To give an analogous example, the principle is the same as one used by those opposed to gun laws: the larger pool of honest citizens should not be penalized for the actions of the few...


In RL, I advise charities on tax law and the only thing the Wapo stories prove is that the journalist who wrote them is clueless as to how the law works.

There is nothing reported in there which is technically illegal. Private Foundations are required to use their funds on charitable activities, which means making gifts to other charities. In all cases reported by Wapo, 100% of the funds were paid to another charity, so they were are legal transactions.

Now did Trump have an ulterior motive behind some of these transactions? yes, but that is how most of these private foundations are operated. Do you think the Clintons don't plan their gifts based on how they can get the maximum political or monetary benefit out of them? The fact that you may have another motive behind the gift does not turn into an illigal donation or "Self Dealing" as long as the donation meets the other criterias under the law.

Self Dealing is when a principal appropriates assets for his own personal benefit, for example, having the foundation make an interest free loan to a related business or pay excessive salaries to the principal and his relatives or buying goods and services at inflated prices, etc. None of what Wapo reports is "Self Dealing".

Now based on the Wapo stories, they went through all of the hundred donations done yearly by the Trump Foundation and this is the only questionable transactions they could find? If true, it makes the Trump Foundation one of the cleanest charity in North America, I doubt the IRS will even bother investigating.

There are two separate situations at play here: in the first, and, legally the one with the most serious consequences, Trump has used his charitable foundation to pay for private, personal expenses and purchases, and more seriously, to possibly conceal political contributions, a very illegal action; this has been documented and can easily be verified from multiple sources by a simple Google search. The WaPo article with the listing of charities was not a search for personal, private or political Trump expenditures in violation of law, but, rather, an attempt to verify the legitimacy of Trump foundation claims of charitable disbursements; in the article, the reporters have proven a constant practice of mainge claims of charitable disbursements that either never happened or were for amounts less than claimed; aside from the obvious question of, if these claimed disbursements were not made to the charities listed, where or to whom the hell did the money really go, if these false claims were made on either tax or other required charitable reporting documents, the possibility of legal action, criminal, civil, or administrative is very real...

BTW, as point of clarification about donations to charitable causes: many times you will see someone or some organization will make a very big dollar contribution, say, USD $10 Million; many, many times the charity is not given in a lump sum, but is instead spread over a period of time; in the case of the USD $10 Million may be USD $1 Million per year over 10 years, or USD $2 Million per year over 5 years or some other amortization; just because the total amount announced publicly doesn't show up in the charity's reports, it doesn't mean that at least some percentage of the total has not been contributed...

Actually if you watched the news, The DNC did put you in a lose position, but the RNC had nothing to do with Trump's position. It was millions of primary voters who actually had a say who was gonna head the GOP ticket, quite unlike the DNC. Now you might disagree with those millions of primary voters, but the fact remains he was chosen by primary voters over the wishes of the establishment Republicans. I guess those millions of primary voters just happened to put you in a lose position.

Actually, if you look at the actual GOP primary total vote count, more GOP voters voted for candidates other than they voted for Trump. Trump only got 44.95% of the total primary popular vote which means 55.05% of all the GOP voters in the 2016 primaries favored anyone other than Trump. He was not, by any means, the overwhelming choice of GOP voters as he claims to be; he gained the nomination by gaming the primary voting setup created by the RNC, specifically the "winner take all" states found early in the primary season; he didn't have to get a clear majority of the total vote in those states, just more votes than is closest competitor; considering that in those early primary states, there were about a dozen candidates, the percentage of the total needed to get the most votes and thus take all the delegates was rather small; Trump benefited from a poorly planned RNC primary setup more than from any groundswell of popular acclaim; the RNC "winner take all" system used in the early primary states, and it's modified version used in the 'middle' primary states actually worked to deny the majority of GOP voters from being heard and respected; the system was setup to conceivably give the whole of a state's delegate count to someone who only garnered a low double-digit percentage of the popular vote; if the RNC had used the same distribution of delegates in proportion to the actual percentage of the popular vote the DNC used in their primaries, Trump would very much likely not be the GOP nominee today...

Here are the numbers for analysis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_prima ries,_2016




<O>

[Torplexed]

Sad that it has to be that way. Something is gonna give sometime, and I don't think that it'll be pretty when it does.

http://www.worthytales.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/desktop-1407878661.png

[Gray Lensman]

<snip>

Actually, if you look at the actual GOP primary total vote count, more GOP voters voted for candidates other than they voted for Trump. Trump only got 44.95% of the total primary popular vote which means 55.05% of all the GOP voters in the 2016 primaries favored anyone other than Trump. He was not, by any means, the overwhelming choice of GOP voters as he claims to be; he gained the nomination by gaming the primary voting setup created by the RNC, specifically the "winner take all" states found early in the primary season; he didn't have to get a clear majority of the total vote in those states, just more votes than is closest competitor; considering that in those early primary states, there were about a dozen candidates, the percentage of the total needed to get the most votes and thus take all the delegates was rather small; Trump benefited from a poorly planned RNC primary setup more than from any groundswell of popular acclaim; the RNC "winner take all" system used in the early primary states, and it's modified version used in the 'middle' primary states actually worked to deny the majority of GOP voters from being heard and respected; the system was setup to conceivably give the whole of a state's delegate count to someone who only garnered a low double-digit percentage of the popular vote; if the RNC had used the same distribution of delegates in proportion to the actual percentage of the popular vote the DNC used in their primaries, Trump would very much likely not be the GOP nominee today...



You can also look at those numbers another way. Trump ran with 15 other candidates. He got 44.95% of the vote and they each got on average 3.67% (55.05%/15) of the total primary vote. How many other ways do you want to look at it? No matter how you cut it, he received MILLIONS more votes than any of his competitors. :D

edit> Newsflash: here! (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/24/trump-threatens-seat-former-bill-clinton-mistress-front-row-debate/)

Mark Cuban couldn't keep his loud mouth shut and had to brag about being invited by Hillary to the debate Monday night to troll the Republican candidate.

Not to be outdone Trump threatened to seat Gennifer Flowers right alongside Mark Cuban. She accepted... "You just can't "out Trump" the Trumpster, LOL" :D

No matter what, Monday will be the most entertaining political night in history.

[Jimbuna]

Whilst appreciating the folly of current US politics (actually worse than the farcical political situation in the UK currently), I must admit I am looking forward to the forthcoming first public debate.

[Rockstar]

so, what they say about europeans and superiority is true. "Our people are not perfect, but our culture or in this case politics, is superior to others” :O:

[Mr Quatro]

I must admit I am looking forward to the forthcoming first public debate.

Me too, football today and foolsball monday ... If Hillary coughs even one time she is out of the race. Trump should light up a cigar, uh?

My present thoughts about the DNC is that if it were not for the Russians we wouldn't even know that the DNC party was crooked against Bernie Sanders.

How many people including the president of the DNC got fired?

Then the hackers (believed to be Russians) let loose data information on the athletes from the Olympic's and if true to their fashion they will release even more information in the coming weeks timed to destroy someone's line of secession to the throne of the white house.

I say who cares who tells us the truth as long as it its the truth :yep:

[Oberon]

(actually worse than the farcical political situation in the UK currently)

Indeed, and I didn't think such a thing could be possible, but you know the Yanks, always got to go one better! :O:

[Catfish]

Donald Trump,
cause you gotta blame someone,
for your own confusion...
-Uninformed Voters-

[Oberon]

Donald Trump,
cause you gotta blame someone,
for your own confusion...
-Uninformed Voters-

Blame China!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3R06i17lLU

[Jimbuna]

I'll be up at 1am GMT in the morning having had my curry and armed with a few cans :cool:

[Gray Lensman]

They pulled the rug on the Gennifer Flowers idea, electing to take the high road and look more professional I guess... Puts Hillary in a spot having already invited Mark Cuban. Now if he acts up, it'll backfire on her rep appearances. Not that she has any rep left, but there are a few undecideds out there.

[Oberon]

As long as no-one lets any nasty, horrible, scary facts get in the way then all should be well. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

As long as no-one lets any nasty, horrible, scary facts get in the way then all should be well. :yep:

LOL :)

[vienna]

You can also look at those numbers another way. Trump ran with 15 other candidates. He got 44.95% of the vote and they each got on average 3.67% (55.05%/15) of the total primary vote. How many other ways do you want to look at it? No matter how you cut it, he received MILLIONS more votes than any of his competitors. :D

...



Trump got 14 million GOP votes; collectively, the other candidates got 17 million GOP votes; this means a bit over 3 million more GOP voters decided Trump wasn't their guy; the 3 million GOP voters represent 10% of the total number of votes cast in all the primaries and 10% is not an insignificant number. If the GOP hadn't gone with the 'winner takes all' setup and, instead, had apportioned the delegates, in a truly democratic and voter relevant fashion, by the percentage of the votes cast in each primary, Trump would never have had enough delegates to secure the nomination; Trump's win of the nomination is not a result of GOP voter acclaim, but, rather the gaming of a horribly ill-thought-out primary system by the GOP leadership; an analogy for this would be a Presidential candidate who barely squeaks by in the popular election but scores big in the Electoral College vote, e.g., Reagan who got 50.75% of the popular vote and got over 90% of the Electoral College vote in 1980 or Obama who got 52.93% of the popular vote and got almost 68% of the Electoral College vote in 2008. Sometimes a winning candidate in any election at any level is not necessarily the "peoples choice" by any means, but more like the result of whatever voting system is being used; myself, I put more store in the popular figures than the systems' figures as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment...


BTW, although a bit OT, in regard to the art of creative accounting touched on in a previous post, here is an example of how you can lie to Congress without, technically, lying:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mylan-clarifies-epipen-profit-figures-it-provided-to-congress-last-week-1474902801

As said before, the higher one goes up the economic food chain the less real the "reality"...



<O>

[Platapus]

As long as no-one lets any nasty, horrible, scary facts get in the way then all should be well. :yep:


We don't do facts in American Politics.

We just go on emotions and then complain later. :D

What would happen if facts started getting incorporated in politics? We would run a very serious risk of getting someone competent. That's just crazy talk. :doh:

[vienna]

They pulled the rug on the Gennifer Flowers idea, electing to take the high road and look more professional I guess... Puts Hillary in a spot having already invited Mark Cuban. Now if he acts up, it'll backfire on her rep appearances. Not that she has any rep left, but there are a few undecideds out there.

More likely the rug was pulled because someone sensible realized the Flowers stunt could very much boomerang against Trump with women voters and sway more of them to Clinton. Actually, not putting Flowers in the mix negates any real impact the presence of Cuban could have; as long as Trump manages to just ignore Cuban and carry on as if Cuban wasn't there, he'll be OK; if he chooses to engage the presence Cuban, either directly of through Clinton, he could very much suffer given the criticism of some of Trump being thin-skinned and not having the temperament for the Presidency; all Trump has to do is keep his mouth shut about Cuban, although, as we have seen, Trump is his own worst enemy...



<O>

[vienna]

We don't do facts in American Politics.

We just go on emotions and then complain later. :D

What would happen if facts started getting incorporated in politics? We would run a very serious risk of getting someone competent. That's just crazy talk. :doh:

I've decided: I'm voting for Platapus!!... :up:




<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

They pulled the rug on the Gennifer Flowers idea, electing to take the high road and look more professional I guess... Puts Hillary in a spot having already invited Mark Cuban. Now if he acts up, it'll backfire on her rep appearances. Not that she has any rep left, but there are a few undecideds out there.

Jennifer Flowers was not going to be asked. This was a response to Hillary's having Mark Cuban at the debates.

[Platapus]

I've decided: I'm voting for Platapus!!... :up:




<O>

Vote Platapus 2016: Sorry World, we gotta focus on fixing the US for a little while.

:yeah:

[August]

Jennifer Flowers was not going to be asked. This was a response to Hillary's having Mark Cuban at the debates.

From what I've heard once word got out the others asked if they could go too. That would have been awesome having a bunch of women heckling Clinton.

[AndyJWest]

From what I've heard once word got out the others asked if they could go too. That would have been awesome having a bunch of women heckling Clinton.

Awesome, if you want political debate replaced by a custard-pie fight. Is that really what the U.S. electorate wants though?

[Gray Lensman]

Trump got 14 million GOP votes; collectively, the other candidates got 17 million GOP votes; this means a bit over 3 million more GOP voters decided Trump wasn't their guy; the 3 million GOP voters represent 10% of the total number of votes cast in all the primaries and 10% is not an insignificant number. If the GOP hadn't gone with the 'winner takes all' setup and, instead, had apportioned the delegates, in a truly democratic and voter relevant fashion, by the percentage of the votes cast in each primary, Trump would never have had enough delegates to secure the nomination; Trump's win of the nomination is not a result of GOP voter acclaim, but, rather the gaming of a horribly ill-thought-out primary system by the GOP leadership; an analogy for this would be a Presidential candidate who barely squeaks by in the popular election but scores big in the Electoral College vote, e.g., Reagan who got 50.75% of the popular vote and got over 90% of the Electoral College vote in 1980 or Obama who got 52.93% of the popular vote and got almost 68% of the Electoral College vote in 2008. Sometimes a winning candidate in any election at any level is not necessarily the "peoples choice" by any means, but more like the result of whatever voting system is being used; myself, I put more store in the popular figures than the systems' figures as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment...

<snip>


Who in their right mind would think that out of a field of 16 candidates one of them would win over 50% of the primary vote? For sure only 2 candidates would have one winning over 50%. Possibly 3 or 4 might have one coming up with 50%, but 16? That is a totally unrealistic viewpoint only grasped at by supporters of those who did not garner the largest amount. You can't run the top 2 or 3 candidates in the National election, you can only run 1 (one), (numero uno), so it should go to the one garnering the most support whether he has the total percentage majority or not.

I've no doubt that some primary voters were motivated to vote against a particular candidate, but to assume that every single one of those voters were voting against a particular primary candidate instead of for their own particular pick (if they were still in the race) was something the lame stream media wanted to promote. Anything to make the opposition party emerging candidate look bad is their mantra. They would have promoted the same idea with whomever other candidate came out of the 16 field.

The GOP primary process was a poor attempt at trying to meld an electoral primary process to a majority rules process in order to imitate the state electoral process (but admittedly the GOP establishment thought that this would work to their favor and eliminate Ron Paul types from the mix). They did not count on a people's populist coming along and taking their marbles from their "manipulated" game. Whether you agree with it or not, it was somewhat fairer than what the Democrats did re: Hillary vs Sanders. It just didn't work out to favor the GOP establishment.

re: electoral college

There's a lot of misconception about the electoral college and its perception of being ill-conceived and interfering with democratic processes

Our country was not and has never been a straight out democratic country. It is and was directly founded in the constitution as a REPRESENTATIVE Republic. (Read your history). The electoral college was set up similarly as a result to prevent big states from imposing their will over smaller states, because the idea was that the country was the United States (plural) not THE United State (singular). So the effect of the electoral college is to give smaller states a somewhat stronger voice in federal affairs in order to offset the size effect of the larger states.

[August]

Awesome, if you want political debate replaced by a custard-pie fight. Is that really what the U.S. electorate wants though?

You can't believe what either of them say so I would bet a sizable number would love to see some pies thrown.

[Gray Lensman]

Jennifer Flowers was not going to be asked. This was a response to Hillary's having Mark Cuban at the debates.

True, but at the time of the post, she (Gennifer Flowers) had offered to take Trump up on the offer if he so desired.

I think it looks better now that he didn't however, and Mark Cuban will look like an idiot if he does anything to disrupt things. There shouldn't be any effect on Trump now that the surprise has been removed. He will probably ignore him (Mark Cuban) or use him as a prop showing how Hillary is tied to rich donor types, turning the tables on Hillary if the issue is expanded during the debate. In effect, the Mark Cuban effect has been neutered.

[Torplexed]

Hillary has to seem forthright. Trump has to seem presidential. It all seems very seamy.

I do think it is ironic that the debate will be immediately followed on Fox by a new episode of Gotham: "Mad City: Burn the Witch."

[vienna]

Who in their right mind would think that out of a field of 16 candidates one of them would win over 50% of the primary vote? For sure only 2 candidates would have one winning over 50%. Possibly 3 or 4 might have one coming up with 50%, but 16? That is a totally unrealistic viewpoint only grasped at by supporters of those who did not garner the largest amount. You can't run the top 2 or 3 candidates in the National election, you can only run 1 (one), (numero uno), so it should go to the one garnering the most support whether he has the total percentage majority or not.

I've no doubt that some primary voters were motivated to vote against a particular candidate, but to assume that every single one of those voters were voting against a particular primary candidate instead of for their own particular pick (if they were still in the race) was something the lame stream media wanted to promote. Anything to make the opposition party emerging candidate look bad is their mantra. They would have promoted the same idea with whomever other candidate came out of the 16 field.

The GOP primary process was a poor attempt at trying to meld an electoral primary process to a majority rules process in order to imitate the state electoral process (but admittedly the GOP establishment thought that this would work to their favor and eliminate Ron Paul types from the mix). They did not count on a people's populist coming along and taking their marbles from their "manipulated" game. Whether you agree with it or not, it was somewhat fairer than what the Democrats did re: Hillary vs Sanders. It just didn't work out to favor the GOP establishment.

re: electoral college

There's a lot of misconception about the electoral college and its perception of being ill-conceived and interfering with democratic processes

Our country was not and has never been a straight out democratic country. It is and was directly founded in the constitution as a REPRESENTATIVE Republic. (Read your history). The electoral college was set up similarly as a result to prevent big states from imposing their will over smaller states, because the idea was that the country was the United States (plural) not THE United State (singular). So the effect of the electoral college is to give smaller states a somewhat stronger voice in federal affairs in order to offset the size effect of the larger states.

The DEM's primary process was far more fair than the GOP's; all the primary states delegates were apportioned pretty much according to the percentage of votes cast for a candidate: if you got 40% of the popular vote in a state, you got 40% of that state's total delegates; get 60% of the popular vote, get 60% of the state's delegates, and so on; this is a direct reflection of the voter's wills as declared in their vote totals, the true will of the people, not some arcane mathematical construct designed (in the case of the GOP, a failed design) to game the outcome. As stated before, Trump would not have had the necessary number of delegates to win the GOP nomination if the delegates were apportioned according to the will of the GOP voters. And, yes, I am aware the US is a representative democracy at the Presidential level, but at the state and local levels we are pretty much a straight democracy when it comes to electing local and state office holders and even Senators and Congressmen. The electoral college style of determining the winner of elections, other than the Presidency, pretty much doesn't exist; you vote and your vote counts straight away without the filter of some complex math construct. If the voters of a state are respected enough to be trusted with the direct election of their local, state, and non-Presidential representatives, what does it say about a party that tries to impose another level of delegate allocation determination other than the direct votes; is that party saying, in essence, they, the party leadership knows what the true intent of the voters better than the voters themselves, that the voters can't be trusted to make a final decision, that their voices must be muffled, muted, and/or interpreted by a system of arcane backroom formulations? Trump's nomination is not a triumph of the democratic process, it is a glaring example of what is wrong with the current process...

Here are a couple of good descriptions of the two parties' approach to the 2016 Primary delegate apportionment methods:

The GOP had five (5) different types of primary elections or caucuses with five (5) different allocation methods --

Convention: State will bind delegates to the national convention at a state/territory convention. Other conventions will leave the delegation unbound.

Proportional: State will proportionally allocate delegates based either on the statewide primary/caucus vote or on the combination of the statewide and congressional district votes.

Proportional with Trigger: State will follow above proportional rules but allows for a winner-take-all allocation if a candidate wins a majority of the vote statewide or at the congressional district level.

Hybrid: State will follow some form of winner-take-more plan (i.e.: winner-take-all by congressional district) or directly elects delegates on the primary ballot.

Winner-take-all: State will award all delegates to the plurality winner of the primary or caucus.
SOURCE: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-by.html


The DEMs had a much simpler and direct method --

Unlike the Republican delegate allocation process, there is far less variation across states on the Democratic side. Under the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2016 Democratic National Convention, all states are required to proportionally allocated delegates with a standard qualifying threshold set at 15%.

That is not to suggest that there is no state-to-state variation in the Democratic process. Rather, that is a statement of the nature of the differences between the two national parties. The approaches are different. The DNC has traditionally been a but more top-down in requiring a number of mandates that the RNC has not. It is that difference that is the reason for the spectrum of allocation rules in the Republican process.SOURCE: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html


BTW, the Frontloading blog I used as a source for the descriptions is really worth a look over if anyone is interested in US politics; it is published by a University of Georgia lecturer and he has an impressive level of detail in his blog posts and some of the other links on the blog page are very interesting...



<O>

[Torplexed]

Hillary's blood red pantsuit hurts my eyes and Trump has the sniffles. What is he hiding? Where are the medical records?

I hope nobody had "taking our jobs" on their debate night drinking game list. *Hic*.

[August]

What is with her right eye? They tried to hide it with the heavy makeup but it's drooping and doesn't move in sync with the other one. :o

[Oberon]

Hillary's blood red pantsuit hurts my eyes and Trump has the sniffles. What is he hiding? Where are the medical records?

I hope nobody had "taking our jobs" on their debate night drinking game list. *Hic*.

Clearly Trump is hiding his illness from the general public since he hasn't immediately released his medical records, clearly you can see by looking at his right nostril that he has Dandy-Walker syndrome which I think makes him unsuitable for president, because he's clearly hiding his illness, because he hasn't mentioned it during the debate therefore he's a lying criminal and must be imprisoned. :yep:


Speaking of lying, NPR is fact-checking the whole thing:

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

[Torplexed]

"Reagan" and "tremendous" were my drinking words for Trump.

Jis wuzz a surious misteak.

[Oberon]

"Reagan" and "tremendous" were my drinking words for Trump.

Jis wuzz a surious misteak.

Medic!

http://ep.yimg.com/ay/mcmahanphoto/bell-uh-1-huey-helicopter-medical-evacuation-vietnam-photo-print-3.jpg

[Torplexed]

Well, that whatever it was is over with. Let the spinning begin.

America 2016--

http://pyxis.homestead.com/3ebb19524143bca78808d288a2b6ac55.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

Clearly Trump is hiding his illness from the general public since he hasn't immediately released his medical records, clearly you can see by looking at his right nostril that he has Dandy-Walker syndrome which I think makes him unsuitable for president, because he's clearly hiding his illness, because he hasn't mentioned it during the debate therefore he's a lying criminal and must be imprisoned. :yep:


Speaking of lying, NPR is fact-checking the whole thing:

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate

When making a joke ... a smilie is better than a nodding 'yes' head :yep:

I saw something in Hillary's right eye too, but I just thought it was her right side that you can't trust, but isn't the right side of your head contolled by the left side?

I'm confused and I'm going to bed ... Trump won with the business deal thoughts against the politician angle. :up:

[Oberon]

But was it a joke?

Anyway, I think this quote from twitter sums it up:

The only winner tonight is the Voyager probe, which is speeding away from the Earth at 17 kilometers/second

[Gray Lensman]

Well, regarding the debate...

I got to see the fireworks I wanted to see, but mid-way thru it, I realized I just couldn't stand watching her thru any more debates. I'll be sitting out the rest of them fireworks or not.

[Catfish]

But was it a joke?

Anyway, I think this quote from twitter sums it up:

"The only winner tonight is the Voyager probe, which is speeding away from the Earth at 17 kilometers/second"

:rotfl2:

[AVGWarhawk]

Hillary got off easily. She had no hard questions or put on the spot. A laundry list of issues and not one hot seat question. Trump was served up on a platter with the cyber attack plan. Why he did not say to start do not set up private unsecured servers in your basement. The entire debate has me drawn to one conclusion. The media is still pushing Hillary.

[Jimbuna]

Totally underwhelmed by it all but I thought Hillary won it easily.

Either way, at the end of it all....God Bless/Help America.

[AVGWarhawk]

Totally underwhelmed by it all but I thought Hillary won it easily.

Either way, at the end of it all....God Bless/Help America.

Of course she did, Jim. She was not questioned on anything that would completely bury her. Hillary has a lot to bury her yet she is not questioned about it.

[Mr Quatro]

Of course she did, Jim. She was not questioned on anything that would completely bury her. Hillary has a lot to bury her yet she is not questioned about it.

Maybe next time Hillary could answer questions about her and her husband Bill's non-profit charity that a long list of countries have contributed to with the hopes that she would look favourably upon them in their time of need.

Here's a bit of news that may decide the race, not that the young voters ever have decided anything so far since they have had the right to vote:
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/technology/297981-social-networks-drive-tens-of-thousands-of-voter-registrations

Social networks drive tens of thousands of voter registrations

Top social media platforms steered hundreds of thousands of users to voter registration websites over the weekend in an effort several states said set new records for registration activity.


Data from those past campaigns suggests younger voters are most susceptible to registration drives on social media networks. In California, more than 60 percent of those who signed up or updated registrations were under the age of 35, and a third were under 25.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes...she got off light....

[Betonov]

The entire debate has me drawn to one conclusion. The media is still pushing Hillary.

I would be considered a demmocrat in the US and I agree with you.

[Gray Lensman]

<snip>

Trump was served up on a platter with the cyber attack plan. Why he did not say to start do not set up private unsecured servers in your basement.

<snip>


I thought the exact same thing at the time. I was laughing and waiting for it and it didn't come. Golden opportunity missed! Would have been a slam dunk!

edit> After watching Holt debate Trump with inaccurate information re:stop and frisk, I think Trump should just tell them to forget more debates that have moderators... Let em go after each other unimpeded. If they want to refute each others facts that's their perogative and it can be argued after the fact. To have a moderator "debate" one of the candidates is not a one on one debate. It's a two on one debate with one of the debatees (sp?) not being in the election process.

[AVGWarhawk]

I thought the exact same thing at the time. I was laughing and waiting for it and it didn't come. Golden opportunity missed! Would have been a slam dunk!

If Trump pulled that Trump card the audience would still be applauding!

The next debate is conducted by CNN I believe. Clinton New Network(CNN) has been in the bag for the Clintons since Bill was President. Just another debate for Hillary to answer for absolutely nothing....sigh.....

But no worries. Hillary will have the rich pay for it all!!!!!!

[Oberon]

https://media.giphy.com/media/aLdiZJmmx4OVW/giphy.gif

[mapuc]

So who won ?

A friends of mine postet two links one from CNN where they say Clinton won and then another from CNBC in which Trump had won.

Markus

[Oberon]

So who won ?

Daesh

[AVGWarhawk]

So who won ?



The networks.

[Mr Quatro]

If Hillary Clinton wins the POTUS ... does that mean we have to think like her?

If Donald Trump wins the POTUS ... does that mean that we have to think like him?

Lord have mercy ::o

[mapuc]

The networks.

I have the feelings our networks(Danish and Swedish) are very much pro Clinton and so is our politicians.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/81_18506520160921050234.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

If Hillary Clinton wins the POTUS ... does that mean we have to think like her?

If Donald Trump wins the POTUS ... does that mean that we have to think like him?

Lord have mercy ::o

No. Not many thought like Obama or any of the others. If Hillary wins it will be another 4 more years of the Obama administration which basically was on cruise control to nowhere. If Trumps wins it will be a rudderless ship on a cruise to nowhere. "It will be a great time believe me." -Trump 2016

I have the feelings our networks(Danish and Swedish) are very much pro Clinton and so is our politicians.

Markus

They are pro-Clinton because they know what to expect....more meek leadership from the USA for another 4 years. Trump looks like a lunatic but hey, he delivers when it comes to making some good news.

[Oberon]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

[AVGWarhawk]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

Hillary does a majority of her lying under oath.

[Catfish]

I remember when i said that Trump is not as dumb as the people describe him, and a lot of US friends said "Oh yes, he is".
A lying politician against a downright lunatic. Even if it seems hard to decide, it really is not.

So Clinton did not care for eMails, and she was probably guilty for this embassy event. How does this compare against leading a nation to war with made-up 'evidence'. I have not seen a court judge this.

As with the Brexit, i better do not bet anymore, the world is falling to pieces and the people sit back in their comfortable armschairs and enjoy the show. While they complain about how bad they have it, in the US but also in e.g. Germany. Panem et circenses. :shifty:

[eddie]

Trump writes a lot books about business, but they all seem to end with Chapter 11........!!!:haha:

[Platapus]

Awesome, if you want political debate replaced by a custard-pie fight. Is that really what the U.S. electorate wants though?


Yes they want it to be like those reality contest shows. They want dirty playing and the ability to vote someone off the game.

[AndyJWest]

Yes they want it to be like those reality contest shows. They want dirty playing and the ability to vote someone off the game.

I thought that was what the primaries were for. :03:

[Graf von Spee]

No matter who wins, the same peoples will run the country

[Highbury]

I know many of you will discount my opinion as I am not from the U.S., but to me it seems simple.

Clinton is a liar and a crook.

Trump is a liar, crook and idiot.

There have been good leaders who were liars and crooks. There has never been a good leader who was an idiot.

[vienna]

So, apparently, you folks in Vancouver are familiar with Dubbya, then...



<O>

[Oberon]

Hillary does a majority of her lying under oath.

A lie is still a lie, whether it's under oath or not, and quite frankly during this campaign so far, Hillary has got a lot of catching up to do if she is to beat Trump in the lying game.

Look at last nights debate when Holt stated that Stop and Frisk in New York was ruled as unconstitutional, Trump immediately fired back with 'No it wasn't', when in reality it was...and indeed the ruling still stands, even if the judge was indeed removed from the case, the ruling was not stayed.
Multiple times when the moderator brought up a fact, or a statement that Trump had said in the past (which is on the record) he immediately denied it, and called the moderator wrong. If I did that here in GT I'd have been infracted or banned! :haha: I mean, there's so much talk about Clinton being a habitual lier, but Trump denies things which have been actively recorded that he has said. The whole 'Chinese Global Warming' conspiracy tweet for example, which was one of the many tweets that his team were furiously deleting last night...but unfortunately for them mankind created the Print Screen button and the internet...no...sorry...the 'cyber', and while those tweets might have been deleted, they are preserved on hundreds of sites around the globe.
He had a chance last night, to move a bit towards the centre ground, to apologize for some of the things he'd said in the past, to try to appeal to a broader audience rather than the curious sub-section he's appealing to right now, but instead he went straight on in with both barrels like a bull in a china shop and Clinton ran rings around him. He could have flipped this back at her, but he did exactly what she wanted him to, because he is so very easy to provoke, you can lay out a trap for him and he will run merrily straight into it. This might be something that will work in the board room, or while closing a deal, but in politics he's going to get eaten alive.
Come on guys, this is getting worrying for the rest of the western world now, the US has spent the last sixty years telling us all that it has the best governmental system, the greatest freedom and the best way forward...and now we get this. What happened? I don't question that things have gone wrong over here too, but not in the spectacular manner in which the wheels are coming off in America.
Quite frankly I'm very worried about where the US is going, and the possibility of it taking us all down with it when it goes.

[Mr Quatro]

Look at last nights debate when Holt stated that Stop and Frisk in New York was ruled as unconstitutional, Trump immediately fired back with 'No it wasn't', when in reality it was...and indeed the ruling still stands, even if the judge was indeed removed from the case, the ruling was not stayed.
Multiple times when the moderator brought up a fact, or a statement that Trump had said in the past (which is on the record) he immediately denied it, and called the moderator wrong.

He plants seeds that his followers believe ... they percieve that he is right. :yep:

Perception = reality

a trick that works even after the debate.

Hillary has her followers too and they fall under the same spell :yep:

Perception = reality

[Oberon]

He plants seeds that his followers believe ... they percieve that he is right. :yep:

Perception = reality

a trick that works even after the debate.

Hillary has her followers too and they fall under the same spell :yep:

Perception = reality

That's a fair point, we all have our perception of what reality is versus what it actually may be. The key is merging the two. I'm certainly not going to go on record and say that Hilary is going to be the perfect President, in fact I'm going to say that she won't be like Obama, she's not as far left as he is, but I think she may take a not dissimilar route to her husband but perhaps not as softly as he may have. She strikes me as a bit more of an authoritarian figure than the likes of Obama and Bill, but she's no demagogue, and she won't shoot her mouth off on the world stage and ruin Americas reputation which has pretty much recovered after the nadir it had fallen into, and reputation matters when you want to keep allies on your side, and with China and Russia possibly teaming up now is really not the time to go isolationist. :hmmm:

[Gray Lensman]

A lie is still a lie, whether it's under oath or not, and quite frankly during this campaign so far, Hillary has got a lot of catching up to do if she is to beat Trump in the lying game.

Look at last nights debate when Holt stated that Stop and Frisk in New York was ruled as unconstitutional, Trump immediately fired back with 'No it wasn't', when in reality it was...and indeed the ruling still stands, even if the judge was indeed removed from the case, the ruling was not stayed.

<snip>

Stop and Frisk is NOT unconstitutional. Trump was correct.

The New York Stop and Frisk case was dropped by de Blasio not stayed,

The original case was about the way New York police were USING Stop and Frisk, NOT that Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional. Much like pulling someone driving over without due cause/reason, the New York Police Dept had begun to overuse the procedure incorrectly according to the case.


“Mayor de Blasio’s decision to drop the Floyd appeal is good news for all New Yorkers who care about both justice and crime prevention. Our policing can be effective while protecting and respecting all New Yorkers. Stop-and-frisk didn’t work. It violated the civil rights of those who were stopped. And it alienated entire neighborhoods in our city. I’m glad that the mayor has decided to drop this misbegotten case,” said Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer.Police all over the country still use Stop and Frisk. If it was ruled unconstitutional no Police Dept anywhere would being using it. SO It was not a Lie on Trump's part, it was a MISINTERPRETATION on the part of a stupid moderator who had no business getting into the middle of the debate in the first place. Just a male version of Candy Crowley.

edit> All this so much reminds me of the nutty over the top cowboy prejudice against Ronald Reagan back in 1980... All I can say is get used to hearing the term President Trump and most likely for the next 8 years. :D

[Oberon]

edit> All this so much reminds me of the nutty over the top cowboy prejudice against Ronald Reagan back in 1980... All I can say is get used to hearing the term President Trump and most likely for the next 8 years. :D

:har: If Reagan could see the GOP now, he'd go back to being a Democrat as fast as they'd take him.

[August]

:har: If Reagan could see the GOP now, he'd go back to being a Democrat as fast as they'd take him.

Yeah and if JFK could see the Democratic party of 2016 he'd be registering as a Republican.

[Oberon]

Yeah and if JFK could see the Democratic party of 2016 he'd be registering as a Republican.

Well, either that or he'd have gone to Dallas a lot earlier... :hmmm:

[Gray Lensman]

:har: If Reagan could see the GOP now, he'd go back to being a Democrat as fast as they'd take him.

re:GOP Establishment, he might go independent, never Democrat. :D

[Oberon]

re:GOP Establishment, he might go independent, never Democrat. :D

I'll go with that. :yep: Either which way, there is very little similarity between him and Trump. At least Reagan had the ability to talk his way out of most situations and could string together a fairly coherent speech.

[Gray Lensman]

Yeah and if JFK could see the Democratic party of 2016 he'd be registering as a Republican.

Well, either that or he'd have gone to Dallas a lot earlier... :hmmm:

Oh, that's cold! :up:

[Gray Lensman]

I'll go with that. :yep: Either which way, there is very little similarity between him and Trump. At least Reagan had the ability to talk his way out of most situations and could string together a fairly coherent speech.

True, Trump is not the "Great Communicator" like Reagan was.

edit> He (Trump) might learn over time however...

Remember, Reagan had years of practice first with TV hosting and then the Governorship of California.

[Oberon]

True, Trump is not the "Great Communicator" like Reagan was.

edit> He might learn over time however...

Remember, Reagan had years of practice first with TV hosting and then the Governorship of California.

He might, but honestly if he was going to do that, he'd be far far better doing it before taking the role of leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
As President, you don't often get a do over.

[Gray Lensman]

He might, but honestly if he was going to do that, he'd be far far better doing it before taking the role of leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
As President, you don't often get a do over.

LOL, I remember, what got me to like Reagan in the first place... It was the Viet Nam era... He was Governor of California... Jerk hippy protestors were protesting something or other... maybe the Viet war most likely... but what I remember was this picture of them giving him the ole single finger salute and he returned the favor right back with a double handed single finger salute over his speech podium. Damn we need more leaders like that today.

In a way, Trump reminds me of that attitude. He just needs some more polish.

[Oberon]

LOL, I remember, what got me to like Reagan in the first place... It was the Viet Nam era... He was Governor of California... Jerk hippy protestors were protesting something or other... maybe the Viet war most likely... but what I remember was this picture of them giving him the ole single finger salute and he returned the favor right back with a double handed single finger salute over his speech podium. Damn we need more leaders like that today.

In a way, Trump reminds me of that attitude. He just needs some more polish.

Yeah, I get the whole anti-PC attitude that has propelled him this far, I think as a whole it's a push back from the past decade where the two sides have struggled to find a balance. Honestly, my whole view of PC is "Don't be a dick to people", that's it. It doesn't matter to me what age, sex, religious orientation or race that they are or claim to be, if they're nice to me, I'll be nice to them, if they're not, return the favour.
Would that it was globally that simple, but humanity likes to complicate things.
Getting back to Trump though, I think his attitude isn't going to get any more polished than it is, because he doesn't think that there's anything wrong with it and that it might need that polish. Trump already considers himself as polished as he's going to get and I don't think that there's anyone within his inner-circle who has the guts to walk up and tell him to turn it down. If there was then he wouldn't have exploded last night when Hilary pushed his buttons. You just can't do that.
Look back at Mitt vs Obama, that was a fair and reasoned debate, and Mitt didn't lose his composure, sure there were some zingers, but they weren't personal and they were fairly reasonable.
I know people want a bit of fireworks in their politics, but it's politics, not Hollywood, and it just doesn't work that way. If you put a demagogue in office, it's not going to reflect very well on the nation or the people that put them there.

[Gray Lensman]

<snip>

Getting back to Trump though, I think his attitude isn't going to get any more polished than it is, because he doesn't think that there's anything wrong with it and that it might need that polish. Trump already considers himself as polished as he's going to get and I don't think that there's anyone within his inner-circle who has the guts to walk up and tell him to turn it down. If there was then he wouldn't have exploded last night when Hilary pushed his buttons. You just can't do that.
Look back at Mitt vs Obama, that was a fair and reasoned debate, and Mitt didn't lose his composure, sure there were some zingers, but they weren't personal and they were fairly reasonable.
I know people want a bit of fireworks in their politics, but it's politics, not Hollywood, and it just doesn't work that way. If you put a demagogue in office, it's not going to reflect very well on the nation or the people that put them there.

I disagree... The Repubs have taken one sided crap in the debates for the last 3 election cycles maybe more... It's just getting worse. Mitt was a wimp that had no fight and it was why he lost. Even ole McCain (a supposedly war toughened vet) didn't want to mix it up, thinking instead that they could "out polite' the other side.

When the sake of your own political beliefs is being run over, it's time to fight back. Trump is not a demogogue. He's learned that to win against the overwhelming machine that is the GOP establishment and the Democratic big government party, he has to show a heck of a lot more fight because the populist base no longer wants to put up with rolling over and losing and having issues that they really care about ignored, especially when it involves the changing and/or redefining of laws in heavy handed ways, such as executive orders directly counter to legitimately established law and the judicial oligarchy redefinition of laws.

I do wish he could maintain a bit more coherency when he does get worked up to fight back. He has the right reasons to fight back, but quite often it comes out somewhat muddled. Fortunately for him, the base doesn't really care whether it's muddled or not. The fact that he's fighting back at all is what they want.

Observe this week... As muddled as he came off sounding in this 1st debate, I doubt very seriously if it is gonna reverse his momentum.

[Oberon]

I disagree... The Repubs have taken one sided crap in the debates for the last 3 election cycles maybe more... It's just getting worse. Mitt was a wimp that had no fight and it was why he lost. Even ole McCain (a supposedly war toughened vet) didn't want to mix it up, thinking instead that they could "out polite' the other side.

When the sake of your own political beliefs is being run over, it's time to fight back. Trump is not a demogogue. He's learned that to win against the overwhelming machine that is the GOP establishment and the Democratic big government party, he has to show a heck of a lot more fight because the populist base no longer wants to put up with rolling over and losing and having issues that they really care about ignored, especially when it involves the changing and/or redefining of laws in heavy handed ways, such as executive orders directly counter to legitimately established law and the judicial oligarchy redefinition of laws.

I do wish he could maintain a bit more coherency when he does get worked up to fight back. He has the right reasons to fight back, but quite often it comes out somewhat muddled. Fortunately for him, the base doesn't really care whether it's muddled or not. The fact that he's fighting back at all is what they want.

Observe this week... As muddled as he came off sounding in this 1st debate, I doubt very seriously if it is gonna reverse his momentum.


Strangely I think that your Republican party (traditional right wing) is having the same crisis that our Labour party (traditional left wing) is having, a split between those who favour the far edges of the political field versus those who prefer a more center ground approach.
I see that the Arizona Republic has broken with 120 years of tradition and endorsed Hillary over the Republican delegate, that's a pretty big flashing warning sign that this, win or lose, is going to split the GOP badly. There were already fracture lines showing with the Tea Party movement but Trump has shoved a crowbar in those lines and is pushing with all his might.
If the GOP does win this election, it will likely be Pyrrhic.

http://citizenslant.com/arizona-republic-not-done-120-years/

I wonder, if Trump does lose, whether a Theodore Roosevelt will appear and create a new Progressive Party. :hmmm:

[Gray Lensman]

Strangely I think that your Republican party (traditional right wing) is having the same crisis that our Labour party (traditional left wing) is having, a split between those who favour the far edges of the political field versus those who prefer a more center ground approach.

<snip>


Actually, it's the establishment wing of the GOP that is having the far edge crisis. 90% of their base has been trying for years to get them to go in a more traditional direction instead of going along with kooky liberal progressive movements of the Democratic Party. The Democrats fuel this by shoving their ideas on to everyone using techniques that are counter to our traditional constitutional norms. When you have established written law directly countered by a King/President using executive orders or redefinition of what a law is supposed to mean by a politicized supreme court what else is to be expected.?

To put it in a different perspective, what effect would it have in the United Kingdom if years of established law by your House of Lords/House of Commons, was suddenly tossed on its head by the Prime Minister using powers supposedly reserved for immediate national crisis moments?


I see that the Arizona Republic has broken with 120 years of tradition and endorsed Hillary over the Republican delegate, that's a pretty big flashing warning sign that this, win or lose, is going to split the GOP badly. There were already fracture lines showing with the Tea Party movement but Trump has shoved a crowbar in those lines and is pushing with all his might.
If the GOP does win this election, it will likely be Pyrrhic.
This is probably hard for foreign friends here to understand, but print news here in the U.S. no longer represents the huge viewpoint that it purports to, especially if the ownership of that news outlet has changed. In fact, I suspect that most of the news overseas regarding American politics is being run thru a news bias filter in those various overseas countries. This explains why there is so much confusion and surprise when seemingly out of the blue, someone like Trump comes along and blows all the pundits out of the water. Their particular news source/slant has been exposed for what it is, biased liberal propaganda instead of news fact.

When Trump is elected, it will be a political earthquake, not Pyrrhic, especially if he can manage to turn things around much like Reagan did following the screwed up Carter years. The Liberal Democrats over here will be given a back seat for quite likely a decade or more depending on whether the GOP base can prevent the erosion of the party back to control by the no-nothing GOP establishment.

[Bilge_Rat]

Look at last nights debate when Holt stated that Stop and Frisk in New York was ruled as unconstitutional, Trump immediately fired back with 'No it wasn't', when in reality it was...and indeed the ruling still stands, even if the judge was indeed removed from the case, the ruling was not stayed.


well no that is not correct, the moderator was grandstanding when he said it was "unconstitutional", he is not a lawyer.

Trump explained it correctly during the debate, one lower court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional and DeBlasio decided not to appeal.

That judge's ruling has limited value and can be challenged at any time in another court if another city, state or the federal government wants to implement its own "stop and frisk" program. Any other judge can rule that it is "constitutional" and ignore the original ruling. For a definitive ruling that it is "unconstitutional", you would need a ruling of the SCOTUS.

so if you want to get technical about it, the moderator "lied" about the issue, Clinton also "lied" by repeating that it was "unconstitutional" and the only one who explained the situation correctly and told the "truth" was Trump.

if you want to get really technical about it, this is the current state of the law:

The Supreme Court has held that under the Fourth Amendment, it is constitutionally reasonable for the police to “stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.” This form of investigative detention is now known as a Terry stop


Just as reasonableness is the touchstone for the Fourth Amendment generally, reasonable suspicion provides the standard at each stage of a Terry stop. Once an officer has lawfully stopped someone based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may lawfully frisk the stopped person based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. If the frisk gives rise to reasonable suspicion that an object in the clothing of the stopped person is a weapon that could be used to harm the officer, then the officer may take whatever action is necessary to examine the object and protect himself.

this is taken from the said ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/document/325433112/Floyd-v-City-of-NY#fullscreen&from_embed

So the judge did not rule that "stop and frisk" was unconstitutional per se, since SCOTUS has already ruled it was legal, only that it was "unconstitutional" in the way it was applied by the NYPD since it principally targeted visible minorities. "Stop and frisk" is constitutional if it is applied impartially based on reasonable criterias.

[AVGWarhawk]

Trump writes a lot books about business, but they all seem to end with Chapter 11........!!!:haha:

:haha:

[Rockstar]

I know people want a bit of fireworks in their politics, but it's politics, not Hollywood, and it just doesn't work that way. If you put a demagogue in office, it's not going to reflect very well on the nation or the people that put them there.

You do realize what a demagogue does right? It's leader or orator who espouses the cause of the common people. Thats what every politician does every voting season in every part of the world. Think Brexit, they too played you like a fiddle.

[vienna]

...All this so much reminds me of the nutty over the top cowboy prejudice against Ronald Reagan back in 1980... All I can say is get used to hearing the term President Trump and most likely for the next 8 years. :D

Eight years? Nah, if Trump is elected, he'll very likely not make it through the first four; he'll probably be impeached before or during his second year; given his inability to address reality and his inability to keep his mouth shut when needed and his high tendency to lie outright, added to whatever landmines his personal dealings hold, if they say "four more years" for Trump, it will be the tallying of additional jail time...

...then, again, there would be a benefit for the Nixon diehards: Trump could make old Tricky Dick seem downright honorable...




<O>

[Gray Lensman]

Eight years? Nah, if Trump is elected, he'll very likely not make it through the first four; he'll probably be impeached before or during his second year; given his inability to address reality and his inability to keep his mouth shut when needed and his high tendency to lie outright, added to whatever landmines his personal dealings hold, if they say "four more years" for Trump, it will be the tallying of additional jail time...

...then, again, there would be a benefit for the Nixon diehards: Trump could make old Tricky Dick seem downright honorable...




<O>

Dream on...

LOL, I remember reading similar silly comments like this in editorial pages of newspapers in the build up towards Reagan's defeat of Carter in 1980. It was 12 years before the Democrats took back the White House and that wouldn't have happened if Bush '41 had adhered to his promise "Read my Lips, No new taxes". The GOP establishment was only too willing to cave on their promises. Poof went their base support.

[AVGWarhawk]

Eight years? Nah, if Trump is elected, he'll very likely not make it through the first four; he'll probably be impeached before or during his second year; given his inability to address reality and his inability to keep his mouth shut when needed and his high tendency to lie outright, added to whatever landmines his personal dealings hold, if they say "four more years" for Trump, it will be the tallying of additional jail time...

...then, again, there would be a benefit for the Nixon diehards: Trump could make old Tricky Dick seem downright honorable...




<O>

Are kidding? It's going to be great! A really really awesome time! We are going to build a wall! Who is gonna pay for it? Mexico! I (cough cough) we will make America great again! Just like "Yes we can!" Cough cough...no we didn't...

[August]

Mexico's wall along their southern border.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRNKdOIoM7p8YPyPSHQRls7RKrl5kRe 3mpAt9IQs7-7ne79qsh
Note the guard towers. If they can have one why can't we?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Are kidding? It's going to be great! A really really awesome time! We are going to build a wall! Who is gonna pay for it? Mexico! I (cough cough) we will make America great again! Just like "Yes we can!" Cough cough...no we didn't... Slightly OT, but that "wall in Mexican border"-stuff always reminds me of old Penn & Teller Bull[add-the-S-word-here]! episode where they criticized fence projects as fix-it-all solution.

They built solid fence according to specifications (federal?) and then tested how long it hindered their "illegal immigrant" teams. Digging tunnel under it was slowest, second was climbing over and absolutely fastest was cutting through it. Last one even camouflaged damage they did and were still faster than others... :D

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Mexico's wall along their southern border.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRNKdOIoM7p8YPyPSHQRls7RKrl5kRe 3mpAt9IQs7-7ne79qsh
Note the guard towers. If they can have one why can't we?Does anyone have idea how many Pesos would be needed to make those guards to see border crossers and make a call to CBP? :hmmm:

[Platapus]

Eight years? Nah, if Trump is elected, he'll very likely not make it through the first four; he'll probably be impeached before or during his second year;


Didn't they say the same thing about Obama?

Being a jerk and or being a poor president are not impeachable offenses.

[Gray Lensman]

A fence is not a wall anyhow... Check out a real wall, i.e what was once the Berlin Wall... capped with slotted round pipe to eliminate easy handholds. It's purpose was more onerous but it did the job they wanted it to. Very few made it over that wall. A small fraction went under or over it... most notably the most remarkable was the hot air balloon escape which bypassed it altogether. LINK! (http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/)

[Betonov]

Slightly OT, but that "wall in Mexican border"-stuff always reminds me of old Penn & Teller Bull[add-the-S-word-here]! episode where they criticized fence projects as fix-it-all solution.

They built solid fence according to specifications (federal?) and then tested how long it hindered their "illegal immigrant" teams.

You forgot to ad they used actual illegal immigrants to build it because they already had experiance building the parts of the wall that already exists.

[razark]

Mexico's wall along their southern border.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRNKdOIoM7p8YPyPSHQRls7RKrl5kRe 3mpAt9IQs7-7ne79qsh
Note the guard towers. If they can have one why can't we?
Mexico even got someone else to pay for it!
http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fence4.jpg

[vienna]

Didn't they say the same thing about Obama?

Being a jerk and or being a poor president are not impeachable offenses.

My God, it was all just a bit of a joke, not a fully serious statement (I do still believe if anyone can find a way to get quickly impeached, it probably would be Trump, but, at least, it would likely be something "Yuuuge!" :haha:)...

About the Mexican southern border wall, over many years here in Los Angeles, I have heard many news reporters who looked into Mexican immigration policies regarding immigration into Mexico from its more southern neighbors; the reporters will interview some Mexican functionary about how Mexico uses walls, military troops, and some rather non-humane procedures and the response is always the same: they are a sovereign country and they have the right to use whatever means they feel necessary to secure their borders. Whenever the reporters ask why the US, a sovereign nation itself shouldn't use the same means to secure its own borders, the functionaries get all indignant and say the US-Mexico border is a different situation and it is an insult to treat Mexican citizens in a manner which Mexico treats its own immigrants. I guess the Mexican government feels they have a right to all the dollars sent back into Mexico and they have the right to stop any other immigrants from passing through Mexico on the way to the US, getting jobs, and depriving the hardworking, honest, Mexican plutocrats form sucking in all those dollars from the US. Really, how callous are we Americans to deign to cause such a hardship on the most corrupt government in the Western Hemisphere; we should be ashamed of ourselves...




<O>

[Gray Lensman]

And don't think the president doesn't have the power to seize/block financial transactions from illegals going back across the border. Mexico will pay for the wall one way or another. Note I said illegals... I don't think he could legally stop transactions from legal immigrants but why would he, they're legal.

[August]

Mexico even got someone else to pay for it!


Wow! the caption said it was in Mexico. I guess I got sucked in by propaganda!

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Cough cough...no we didn't...

Even if that were true, it would be because of an obstructionist Congress.

[Mr Quatro]

What about the audio secret tape recording of Trump saying, "I'm not going to do any of those things" (meaning build the wall)?

He can't afford to reduce taxes by 15% and increase the military and build a wall between USA and Mexico now can he. FEMA will need more money for any disaster.

But still I would support him in his efforts to try and be the man that he thinks he can be.

[GT182]

I'll be up at 1am GMT in the morning having had my curry and armed with a few cans :cool:



I hope the wind is blowing out of the West if you have the windows open Jim.