›

The Next American President Thread (2016)

1…104105107109110…198

Comments

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    Trump on his new change regarding immigration deportations ... contradicting much he has said before:


    and his new campaign head trying to be succinct here:


    Yeah, his latest trick: Act like a Democrat.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    You cannot make this stuff up, truly. The words out of his mouth. The police are petrified to act. And they must be allowed to "counter attack."


    More emails of Hillary's will be released:

    @chrisisall, Bernie's team:




  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    But I do think I share the same worries......or for that sake same 'sentiment' as @BondJames.

    Many people in here know I admire Hillary Clinton. Many people also know that @BondJames is more critical about Hillary Clinton. But I do think, like @BondJames, that the presidential race is far far from over.

    Despite the Trump campaign being in complete shambles and Hillary Clinton consistently leading with double digits in various national polls (It seems that even Arizona, Georgia and even South-Carolina seem to be up for grabs, which is bad news for Trump), I still think Trump has a chance to win the elections.

    Because, like @BondJames, I agree that Trump isn't an ordinary candidate. Any establishment candidate could pack his bags at this stage of the campaign. Here are a few reasons why I think Trump can still realistically win it:

    A) The conventions were taking place much earlier in the race than previous recent election years. So despite the fact that the DNC took place almost two weeks ago, we still have a full 3 months to go. Leaving open way more 'surprises', and also more room to reset a campaign and become another 'come-back-kid'.

    B) And an 'October Surprise' really is on its way. As we know already, WikiLeaks did some serious damage with regard to the Democratic National Committee (pro-Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0). Chairman Wasserman-Schultz had to step down. And ad-interim chair Donna Brazile is still busy cleaning the mess. Julian Assange already hinted that next in line of damaging leaks could be Hillary Clinton herself: https://politicalwire.com/2016/08/09/an-october-surprise-for-hillary-clinton/ . Make no mistake, @BondJames several times said that all these hacks and leaks are only sidetracks. But I think they could become damaging if new leaks give away some dirty information about one of the Clinton Foundation's 'bundlers' (people, and even foreign nations contributing $10.000,- or more). If one of these 'bundlers' have actively funded some efforts to get co-founder Hillary Clinton elected as US-Senator or...President, then that's damaging. Make no mistake, I hate men like Julian Assange, and I think for that reason he should hack Trump's tax returns. He might even imply that a former DNC-employee turned into a WikiLeaks informant and was killed for it. But fact is, the Democrats were hacked, and they should be serious about this.

    C) Other 'October Surprises' could include some bad economic reports coming up around September and October, in which the Fed needs to raise the interest rates: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/job-surge-complicates-rate-hike-decision/ . The weird thing is, that the recent job growths (a good thing for the Democrats) might be a reason for the Fed to raise the interest rates as well (a good thing for the Republicans). Another 'October Surprise' could be another terrorist attack, this time an attack that could be even bigger than the one in Orlando, Florida. If it's an attack that's closer in nature to 9/11, then this could change the nature of the election cycle as well.

    D) As I said before, Donald Trump isn't an ordinary candidate. To me he seems as ethically unjust and bad as our own Geert Wilders. But like Geert Wilders, he is also a damn smart mediaplayer. He knows what people vote for him. And those people may be way more forgiving as people who generally vote for establishment candidates. So when it might look as if he destroyed his chances like Dukakis in 1988 and Walter Mondale in 1984, he might actually rise up again from the ashes of a campaign in shambles....for the very simple reason that his voters admire outsiders who can rise up again from the dead. For establishment candidates that's way more difficult.

    E) And that very nature of Donald Trump could be reflected in the recent polls (and upcoming polls until November 8th). Many people who are being polled could simply choose not to openly say for who they will vote, because their choice is Donald Trump. And there's still a certain stigma created in part by the media that prevents possible voters to be honest about their support for outsider candidates like Barack Obama back in 2008 (at that moment in time most definately an outsider and a 'mild populist'), and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump during these 2016 elections. Especially supporters of Trump could be part of a 'silent majority' that feel in public ashamed about Trump, but who in the end will vote for him anyway: https://www.thenation.com/article/are-hillary-clintons-strong-poll-numbers-misleading/


    Make no mistake, I want Hillary Clinton to become president. Many people know my reasons for it. I have valid reasons for it and I'm passionate about them.

    But the race 'ain't over until it's over'. And my gut feeling tells me that only one guy can rise up from a campaign that is in complete self-destruct mode right now. And, I'm saddened to admit that this guy's name is Donald Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins the US Elections in a 2000-esque fashion. And if he does so, I will be gutted.

    The only solace that Clinton supporters, like me, right now have, is the fact that Hillary Clinton is indeed doing much better in the polls than The Donald. So like @BondJames, I am realistic enough to be prepared for whatever scenario ;-). The difference is that we have some fundamental differences on who we prefer to see as the next US President.

    I think it's still important to refer to my previous post from August 8th. Because it 'ain't over until it's over'.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    We have those new emails coming out now on Hillary. And they will be interpreted in several ways - certainly the Republicans will slant it their way (Criminal! Proves she was influenced!) and the Democrats will slant it their own way (not unusual meetings or requests, happens to every Secretary of State; and this Secretary of State was not influenced). The accompanying name calling will reach even higher proportions. Just hoping people can wade through this onslaught and and try to discern what is what. What is acceptable and what is not, for each of us to decide for ourselves.

    And Trump will keep being Trump: such crossing of lines of decency, outright bigotry, provocative statements, changing his stance to what he said previously, policies that can not logically be put into effect, etc. He thrives on that and that will continue, too.

    So ... we shall see, but I think September and October (apparently the earliest the emails can be all be made public is October) will be loud, with negative things popping up in both parties. It will be lively, to say the least.

    Here's to us, each American citizen having to deal with all of this. Because deal with it, we must.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited August 2016 Posts: 6,601
    Commander, as much as I resdpect you - you lost me finally when you claim the source of her health is her doctor. This is ridiculous, I am afraid, at best. And yes, illuminaty and co are at work and doing a good job. But we are not going into debate over this. Time will tell. Think of the worst scenario planned and you get close. Problem is, as long as even educated people like yourself don't look under the carpet and search in other directions then the obvious, they can fool people.

    It should be enough to wake up, when you see, that we are poisened from the air through chemtrails, that they poisin our food and everything around us. The industry does that after they have bought their presidents and co, who give it free rain. Our very own Merkel just again sanctioned (I would have to look up the name) ?? to put on our fields, which is known to bring cancer. There you go. That is the truth and no way around it.

    But thanks for taking the time to answer in length. Like I said, i have a lot of respect for you.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,978
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Commander, as much as I resdpect you - you lost me finally when you claim the source of her health is her doctor. This is ridiculous, I am afraid, at best. And yes, illuminaty and co are at work and doing a good job. But we are not going into debate over this. Time will tell. Think of the worst scenario planned and you get close. Problem is, as long as even educated people like yourself don't look under the carpet and search in other directions then the obvious, they can fool people.

    It should be enough to wake up, when you see, that we are poisened from the air through chemtrails, that they poisin our food and everything around us. The industry does that after they have bought their presidents and co, who give it free rain. Our very own Merkel just again sanctioned (I would have to look up the name) ?? to put on our fields, which is known to bring cancer. There you go. That is the truth and no way around it.

    But thanks for taking the time to answer in length. Like I said, i have a lot of respect for you.

    How would someone's doctor not be the right source of information on someone's health? These people train for a decade to understand the inner workings of our body.

    Again you claim we're mass poisoned, but give me a reason. Look, I understand it's frightening to see what's going on in the world. We're fed with an enormous amount of information every day, and it sure feels sometimes the world is against you. But that's a natural feeling we all have. It has a biological reason: we are trained to see things that change, for they may cause danger. And in a rapidly changing world this may be frightening. But what you seem to forget is the basic question all kids Always ask:
    Why?
    Why would they poison us? If there's a 'they', which I tried to explain there isn't. But even if there was a group of people 'governing the world', why would they want to poison us?
    If they want to get rich, they need more, noty less people. If they want power, they need more, not less people (ask the Pope, the catholic church actively encourages people to get as many children as possible, have been doing that for years).

    Give me one reason why your sources, who claim chemtrails are real, who claim Hillary's health is deteriorating, should be more trustworthy then any other source? Because they are small? Because they state that others lie? Because thay state that people you didn't trust in the first place lie? But makes that them more trustworthy? Because they're not powerfull and those who say the opposite are (and thus whatever they say is the opposite of truth?).

    Especially your economy, the German one, is based on trust. The fact that you don't get robbed in the Streets every day, like in some places in South America, makes your country thrive. The fact that you do get a working TV instead of a box of bricks when you buy one is based on trust.

    Your mistrust for everyone in power sends you in the hands of those who thrive on mistrust. Who make money out of people ill at easy in the modern world.

    Is everyone doing a good deed then? Hell no. Again, the question is 'why'. Why do some companies use chemicals that are dangerous in the long term while producing food? Because the chemicals they use are cheap, they lose less crops and all those who buy their food as cheap as possible buy it instead of food produced by honest companies. It's not to poison you, it's to make money off of you.

    Then the chemtrails: Yet engines burn at very high temperatures, letting the water vapour in the air expand quickly. The surrounding air still is -50 degrees centegrade at that altitude, so the expanded vapour then freezes over immidiately, creating clouds.

    You can see it every time you fly in a jet aircraft and sit at the back. Why not try it.

    So aren't chemicals used in the air? Yes, they are. Russia and China have been known to spray clouds (water vapour) with chemicals to make them dissapear, so huge national events looked better in a cloudless sky. Your Olympic openings, i.e., wouldn't be so epic if it was raining all the time. Are these meant to kill you? No. They are meant to show you the beauty of the state so Putin's popularity remains as high as it is. Don't forget the Russians get completely different news then we do. Again, ask why.

    Famous people are not smarter or more special then you are, they are human. They can't oversee their actions that well. We're part of an immense, undirected global anthill with no queen to guide us in the right direction. Believe me, I've met quite a few powerful people in my line of work, and they all dissapoint with their stupidity.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Let me just pick one - chemtrails - what they tell us it is, would disappear in a few minutes, as it used to and still does, BUT its so easy to look into your sky and watch them NOT disappear but grow instead. there you go. Not quantum physics.

    I don't believe, you and I will come to an agreement over this, so its best to depart from the topic. I can't give you explanations in a few sentences. Our background thinking and hence our sources are different and even though, one can easily build a super logical case on untrue base material, which is done for centuries, its still not the truth in the end.

    Lets agree to disagree my friend.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,815
    edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/alice-cooper-elected-running-for-president/

    Well, he can't do worse than Trump, really. "Welcome to my nightmare" indeed !

    poster_grande.png?v=1461769093
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,978
    @Germanlady I'm afraid that's hard for me, I studied aeronotical engeneering too for a year, and I don't know who tells you they will dissapear, but that's all up to the weather conditions up at 10.000 meters (30.000 feet). They sometimes do, and often don't dissapear. The don't grow bigger, the disperse (which you can see for yourself as when they start they're harder to see through then when they have started to disperse).

    As I said, I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm asking you to question all sources, either the ones you don't believe and the ones you do, by asking 'why?'('how' is also allowed ;-) ) . That's the basic rule in science. And in science, when you've found out what you thought to be true turns out to be not exactly (or sometimes completely not) what you thought you're allowed to change your mind, based on results others can repeat. So from the offset I can guarantee you that many of our basic understandings now are wrong. Even Einstein had his own forgone conclusions, dismissing one of his own theories which now seems to be right all along.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's true that we have a tendency to affirm our own heuristics rather than searching out contradictory (and potentially valid) evidence. That's human nature I'm afraid.

    In meetings, I normally ask people to provide a counter point to their argument or proposition. The idea being to get people to think outside their comfort zone and question their beliefs and views, which sometimes are anecdotal rather than empirical (or even if empirical, are emphasized by some psychological bias).
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Comander no, THEY don't grow bigger, but IT does. Look up and see for yourself. Here in Germany, I can watch it right from my apartment. There are enough valid sources on that. Overall I suppose, my sources are in different boxes then yours and as long as you still believe, a presidents doctor is NOT telling, what they ask her to say, we really have no common line here. She could tell the truth, but chances are as good, she would lie until she turns black, when she is paid well and ask to do so. Or do you believe, these people are surrounded by people, who are allowed to mumble an own opinioin? Rather not. The best Yay sayer will get the job. The list is endless and we could discuss until we turn green.

    No reason for that. I stop here.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    But I do think I share the same worries......or for that sake same 'sentiment' as @BondJames.

    Many people in here know I admire Hillary Clinton. Many people also know that @BondJames is more critical about Hillary Clinton. But I do think, like @BondJames, that the presidential race is far far from over.

    Despite the Trump campaign being in complete shambles and Hillary Clinton consistently leading with double digits in various national polls (It seems that even Arizona, Georgia and even South-Carolina seem to be up for grabs, which is bad news for Trump), I still think Trump has a chance to win the elections.

    Because, like @BondJames, I agree that Trump isn't an ordinary candidate. Any establishment candidate could pack his bags at this stage of the campaign. Here are a few reasons why I think Trump can still realistically win it:

    A) The conventions were taking place much earlier in the race than previous recent election years. So despite the fact that the DNC took place almost two weeks ago, we still have a full 3 months to go. Leaving open way more 'surprises', and also more room to reset a campaign and become another 'come-back-kid'.

    B) And an 'October Surprise' really is on its way. As we know already, WikiLeaks did some serious damage with regard to the Democratic National Committee (pro-Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0). Chairman Wasserman-Schultz had to step down. And ad-interim chair Donna Brazile is still busy cleaning the mess. Julian Assange already hinted that next in line of damaging leaks could be Hillary Clinton herself: https://politicalwire.com/2016/08/09/an-october-surprise-for-hillary-clinton/ . Make no mistake, @BondJames several times said that all these hacks and leaks are only sidetracks. But I think they could become damaging if new leaks give away some dirty information about one of the Clinton Foundation's 'bundlers' (people, and even foreign nations contributing $10.000,- or more). If one of these 'bundlers' have actively funded some efforts to get co-founder Hillary Clinton elected as US-Senator or...President, then that's damaging. Make no mistake, I hate men like Julian Assange, and I think for that reason he should hack Trump's tax returns. He might even imply that a former DNC-employee turned into a WikiLeaks informant and was killed for it. But fact is, the Democrats were hacked, and they should be serious about this.

    C) Other 'October Surprises' could include some bad economic reports coming up around September and October, in which the Fed needs to raise the interest rates: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/job-surge-complicates-rate-hike-decision/ . The weird thing is, that the recent job growths (a good thing for the Democrats) might be a reason for the Fed to raise the interest rates as well (a good thing for the Republicans). Another 'October Surprise' could be another terrorist attack, this time an attack that could be even bigger than the one in Orlando, Florida. If it's an attack that's closer in nature to 9/11, then this could change the nature of the election cycle as well.

    D) As I said before, Donald Trump isn't an ordinary candidate. To me he seems as ethically unjust and bad as our own Geert Wilders. But like Geert Wilders, he is also a damn smart mediaplayer. He knows what people vote for him. And those people may be way more forgiving as people who generally vote for establishment candidates. So when it might look as if he destroyed his chances like Dukakis in 1988 and Walter Mondale in 1984, he might actually rise up again from the ashes of a campaign in shambles....for the very simple reason that his voters admire outsiders who can rise up again from the dead. For establishment candidates that's way more difficult.

    E) And that very nature of Donald Trump could be reflected in the recent polls (and upcoming polls until November 8th). Many people who are being polled could simply choose not to openly say for who they will vote, because their choice is Donald Trump. And there's still a certain stigma created in part by the media that prevents possible voters to be honest about their support for outsider candidates like Barack Obama back in 2008 (at that moment in time most definately an outsider and a 'mild populist'), and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump during these 2016 elections. Especially supporters of Trump could be part of a 'silent majority' that feel in public ashamed about Trump, but who in the end will vote for him anyway: https://www.thenation.com/article/are-hillary-clintons-strong-poll-numbers-misleading/


    Make no mistake, I want Hillary Clinton to become president. Many people know my reasons for it. I have valid reasons for it and I'm passionate about them.

    But the race 'ain't over until it's over'. And my gut feeling tells me that only one guy can rise up from a campaign that is in complete self-destruct mode right now. And, I'm saddened to admit that this guy's name is Donald Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins the US Elections in a 2000-esque fashion. And if he does so, I will be gutted.

    The only solace that Clinton supporters, like me, right now have, is the fact that Hillary Clinton is indeed doing much better in the polls than The Donald. So like @BondJames, I am realistic enough to be prepared for whatever scenario ;-). The difference is that we have some fundamental differences on who we prefer to see as the next US President.

    Please read my above comments from August 8th. And especially argument B) (that very well could lead to argument C)). Now compare those with yesterday's news that the FBI released 14,900 more emails from Clinton's private email server when she was Secretary of State, and how they fit in with Judicial Watch's discovery of other emails from The Clinton Foundation:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/hillary-clintons-new-emails-release-state-department.html?_r=0

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html

    In all honesty? I think this is the first time it could damage her campaign. Trump can get away with many things, but last week was the first time Trump stayed more or less 'gaffe-free'. And with an entire brand-new campaign team for Trump, I think the chance is negligible that this time they won't fiercefully attach Clinton for this. There is now simply too much to not support some damaging conflict of interest.

    And we haven't even mentioned WikiLeaks just yet.

    I have to say, that for most of these conflicts of interest, the then chief of staff Huma Abedin, of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is mostly to blame. What she did is inexcusable. I already se Trump's campaign attacking her as a 'criminal Muslim'. But Hillary should have done way way more to counteract or prevent Abedin's unethical conduct of business in which 'conflict of interest' are the guiding words.

    Make no mistake, from all those emails it doesn't become clear that Clinton actively and purposedly abuse the State Department for private and commercial gains for the Clinton Foundation. She doesn't appear to be 'Nixon 2.0' from these documents. But, it is damaging.

    I hope Hillary can be clear and transparent about this. She has to. Otherwise it could haunt her for the next two months. But in all honesty? I wouldn't be surprised that this could be Trump's moment, and that because of this all the wonderful polls for Clinton will swiftly sink in the upcoming two weeks. I am...very sad to admit that :-(. But I am foremost a realist and pragmatist. I saw this coming.



  • FLeiterFLeiter
    Posts: 315
    Jeez...are we still talking about Hillary's health and emails? Really? Are you that easily influenced by 'shiny objects'/

    The Hillary pretend health scary stories were first hatched by Karl Rove(Bush's Brain) in 2014. Since that time her personal doctor has examined her and she is THE ONLY DOCTOR to examine her. Would any of you trust a doctor who issues a diagnosis on you based on a paragraph from another doctor? No physical exam or videotape of an exam. This isn't like the chiropractic scam that signs you up for 10 appointments before they lay a hand on you. And who does the Republican hack Sean Hannity of Faux News promote as an expert on possible brain damage or mental impairment? Wait for it......wait...a urologist/ Like most men I've been accused of thinking with my small head at times, but this is comical. A urologist is NOT QUALIFIED to even comment on anything to do with one's brain.

    The emails are not some October surprise as some would say. It is business as usual. There is no quid pro quo. The Clinton Foundation has the highest 5-star rating and financials are examined annually. Hillary, Bill and Chelsea have not drawn one penny from the Clinton Foundation. Where is the proof that any of the Clintons benefitted financially at all? From what I've seen of the emails are people seeking introductions or meetings, which goes on in business and governments all over the world daily. Who hasn't sought to meet someone in power by requesting a mutual friend to bring us together. Ever look for a job and find yourself asking a friend for an inside track? Again, show me how one U. S. policy was changed based on a donation to the Clinton Foundation. I can show you Congressmen who stuffed pork into a bill to enrich a donor or one of their buddies and they have no problem doing it. Little wonder there are hundreds of millionaires in the House and Senate. There's your quid pro quo in action.

    OK, I hesitate to ask but I want to be introduced to Honor Blackman and get an autographed photo. Does anyone know her here? Can you provide an introduction. I'll pay.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    Politicians these days .... ;)


  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    Personally, I do believe the Clinton Foundation is okay. It has done a lot of good and is well scrutinized (to put it mildly). As Secretary of State, I do not think that Hillary did anything that her predecessors have not done; and I think none of them really crossed the line into being "bought out". Honestly, I have not studied this or other Secretaries of State in depth yet, but from what I can tell, I do not see where it has been proven that she did anything while in that position that was due to overreaching influence of outside sources. She has endured more than 20 years of people looking for any detail to crucify her. So far, I do not see where she has done anything differently than previous people in her position. I will still keep reading and researching, but that it my understanding of that particular point (Clinton Foundation and her time as Secretary of State).
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    The entire U.S. political system is based on quid pro quo. Just read up on LBJ, if you want tons of details of that. He got things put into law (as do all presidents) by offering aid, things that were wanted, inducements, etc. to governors, senators, everybody.

    Compromise is the lubrication of getting things done in our U.S. system. I think we all want that (all those compromises and promises, etc.) to fall within the realm of things done that are legal and for the benefits of U.S. citizens. For sure there needs to be a constant, vigilant look at our political system always, ongoing. But that is the reality of the system, in my opinion.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    Personally, I do believe the Clinton Foundation is okay. It has done a lot of good and is well scrutinized (to put it mildly). As Secretary of State, I do not think that Hillary did anything that her predecessors have not done; and I think none of them really crossed the line into being "bought out". Honestly, I have not studied this or other Secretaries of State in depth yet, but from what I can tell, I do not see where it has been proven that she did anything while in that position that was due to overreaching influence of outside sources. She has endured more than 20 years of people looking for any detail to crucify her. So far, I do not see where she has done anything differently than previous people in her position. I will still keep reading and researching, but that it my understanding of that particular point (Clinton Foundation and her time as Secretary of State).


    It's absolutely true that, based on the contents of all these emails, Hillary did nothing 'Nixonian'. During the Watergate scandal Nixon delibarely bugged the DNC office...or he was directly responsible for it. He hated the Kennedy's, and all those other 'damn liberals' who made life so unpleasant for him. Nixon was powerhungry, and a true threat for our democracy.

    The modern-day equivalent of Watergate obviously is computerhacking. Deliberately breaking into computer servers under sometimes false pretences of 'transparency' (now this is what I call real crime: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/ap-analysis-private-data-of-hundreds-of-people-exposed-on-wikileaks-site-includes-rape-victims/2016/08/23/aa08c74e-68ff-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html ). Hillary didn't hack computers with her private email server. It wasn't her direct 'evil' intention to destroy 'the far right'. Absolutely not.

    But Hillary Clinton was rather careless. And I don't want to sound sexist now, but I do think that any other powerful female, like the current PM Theresa May or German chancellor Angela Merkel, could have down similar careless things. And the contacts/communication between then Hillary's State Department and her Clinton Foundation, certainly leave a veil of misconduct, lack of transparency and conflicted interests. And in today's politics in which populism and neo-fascism start becoming more powerful everyday, that's not a good look.

    It's 2016 now, democracies and the middle class are in steep and swift decline. The 'Trump's' and 'Wilders' of today are preying on such moments like wolves on dead reindeers. So it's not 1996, or 1986, when western society was still very prosperous.

    If I have to make an advise to Clinton? Deal with the whole shit before the end of the month. Show to all Americans that you are willing to say sorry. Put all the facts regarding these emails on the table, even the 'conflicts of interests'. Have one hell of a last speech, in which you completely debuke all the 'populist nonsense', while at the same time you show how much you care about all Americans. And outsource the whole damn Clinton Foundation to some other people.

    I am fully aware that the news from today and yesterday is damaging to Clinton's campaign. It can cost her the presidency. But I also look at the facts: Clinton didn't intentionally harm people? So I hope Hillary wins!
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    I do not think the facts (as we know so far) are truly damaging. But the portrayal of this will be somewhat damaging (in press and from most Republicans and Trump supporters of course). Perception, not nitpicky facts. Perception really holds a lot of sway. And we are still getting facts, but we have to dig for them it seems.

    I do think the Clintons were not smart in handling this. Surely, they could have guessed that they would get crucified over anything, anything at all. I think the Clinton Foundation could have been better handled regarding this point, and transitioned sooner.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    America has already become a police state. the news and those fringe elements won't be satisfied until they turn this country into what Germany was in the 1930's.

    How can anyone in their right (no pun intended) mind want to vote for Trump? THINK,
    SUPREME COURT....NUCLEAR CODES....
    Who believes that this caricature of a banana republic demagogue is Presidential material?
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited August 2016 Posts: 3,564
    This might be a good place to lodge this point. Most of you have probably never heard of Willie Brown. Well, he's a legendary force in California politics. Speaker of the House in the state Assembly for many years, mayor of San Francisco for several years after that. Currently posting weekly columns in a San Francisco newspaper. Made cameo appearances in various films such as Godfather lll and videos like the Jefferson Starship's Layin' It On The Line. Bottom line: a guy who knows the political arena mighty well. Willie is fond of telling a piece of advice given to him by Jesse Unruh, his political mentor...and the advice goes something like this: "If you can't take a lobbyist's money, eat his food, drink his liquor, screw his women and then vote against him the next day, you don't belong in politics." Think about that. There's a whole lot of truth there. A politician is simply going to have people giving him money. That's the way the game is played. And some of the time the politician is going to do things the moneyed interests want them to do it -- but sometimes they're going to have to vote differently. Again, it's just the way the game is played, and everybody that plays the game knows and understands the rules. Trump has played that game by his own admission. He's given money to Hillary in the past, and he's given money to her opponents as well. Now, if Trump gets to be President, he's clearly going to be ruling in favor of Trump interests first, last, and always. If Hillary gets to be President, do you think she'll be able to take their money, eat their food, and let Bill screw their women -- then rule against them when necessary? Damn RIGHT she will! She belongs there; Donald doesn't. It's just as simple, and as cynical, as that. Want to get the money out of politics? Good luck with that, pilgrim, I'm right behind you. But don't even think about installing Trump in the Presidency at the same time you're trying to get the $$$ out of politics because that way lies the total capitulation of the office to someone's financial interests and we all know damn well whose.
  • FLeiterFLeiter
    Posts: 315
    Would you feel comfortable if this man asked you to disrobe so he could examine you?

    harold-bornstein-21.jpeg?quality=65&strip=all&strip=all

    Apparently Donald Trump has no problem. Presenting Dr. Bornstein, Trump's personal doctor. YIKES!

    NO! I don't want a lollipop.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    Both candidates will be raising money, in different ways. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. We just need to look carefully at both as to how they are doing this, to make sure it is legal. For people to immediately heap scorn on candidates for raising a lot of money is, in my opinion, wrong. Our system makes it necessary. You want to change the system? Like @Beatles said, I am right there with you. But for the present time, we have to deal within it. That is the reality.

    It does not help that both sides have such a sky high level of scorn for each other (supporters more than the candidates themselves). And both sides immediately, without looking for details for further information, calling the other side evil and criminal and worse. It is that immediate reaction, not even looking further or trying to discern the big picture or follow the details or compare the actions to past candidates (what is the norm? what has been acceptable?), that I find really disturbing.

    I don't mean just for Clinton; I mean for all candidates. The way some very vocal supporters are behaving during this entire election cycle is disturbing. The ugliness and the racist and vile hatred that is beyond reason. That is ugly indeed. Granted, they are still a minority. But it is like many have come out from under rocks and decided they now have approval ... approval to be so loudly hateful and bigoted and say anything they want. The internet alone has made it so easy to say anything, even often anonymously. It does embolden the worst of human nature, in my opinion.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    @Fleiter, er...... thanks, but I cannot really look at that photo. Just so .... ugh!
    Not that this photo in itself, sways my opinion one bit regarding Trump. Or what his children or good friends say. I made up my mind about him from his own actions and words. But that photo is genuinely creepy, yes.

    Same for Clinton, I don't let her child, her husband, or good friends everywhere dictate my decision about her.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    One look at the states needed to win:



    Trump trying to look like he is softening his stance on immigration, deportation, etc.
    His new spokes person keeps pushing he has changed:


    Trump himself:



  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    So some people are looking at past foundations.
    Here is this: Bush compared to Clinton

    Their foundations and donations



  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    He is still building the wall. Ok then.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    He is still building the wall. Ok then.

    He can't back down from the wall. It's the central premise and promise of his campaign. That's probably the one thing that would get his supporters to turn on him, going back on his promise to build the wall. It seems like everything else with him is negotiable, but that's one aspect of his campaign I don't think he can walk back and still have a hope of being competitive.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    dalton wrote: »
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    He is still building the wall. Ok then.

    He can't back down from the wall. It's the central premise and promise of his campaign. That's probably the one thing that would get his supporters to turn on him, going back on his promise to build the wall. It seems like everything else with him is negotiable, but that's one aspect of his campaign I don't think he can walk back and still have a hope of being competitive.

    I think Trump's supporters will swallow every thing, every flip-flop, every 'Trump-turns-into-a-Democrat-manoeuvre. If he backs down from that 'big wall', 'Trumpites' will say "Look, he shows he wants to change for the better!" Trump supporters are so infatuated with the phenomenon Trump, or with the 'Everything-but-Hillary-mantra, that they become blind. If Trump says "Bow down to my knees and lick feet", they would still organize a rally to make that happen:


  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    I think some would probably stick with him were he to back down from the wall, but he'd have an exodus of supporters large enough to ensure defeat. There are a lot of people that hold that up as the central idea of Trump's candidacy. There's a reason that, when a rally isn't going well for him, that Trump knows he can say something about the wall and get everything back on track again.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited August 2016 Posts: 28,694
    That wall would take so goddamn long to build, it's amazing he is still going on about it. I'm sure that every night before he goes to bed he gets off at the thought of taking his orange arse down to the border and laying the very first brick of the structure down.

    I wonder how much immigration would increase leading up to the beginning of the wall, since people intending to flee to the US would make one last mad dash for it, all at once. There'd be nothing to stop them either, and Trump and co. could never build the wall quick enough to do anything about the mass immigration happening on all points across the border. This mess would only jolt the immigration numbers sky high.

    I feel like an imbecile even entertaining this cartoon notion of a wall.
This discussion has been closed.