Donald vs Hillary

[segnosaur]

There are true conservatives who believe in conservative values, and then there are some who call themselves conservatives but are not conservative at all.

Does that include Trump? After all, he:

- Was a registered Democrat for much of the past few decades

- Has praised Hillary Clinton, AND donated money to her campaigns in the past

- Has campaigned against various free trade deals and talked about "bringing jobs back"... traditionally it has been the conservative side that pushes for free trade while it is the left wing that demands protectionist policies.

- Has taken an isolationist stance, again which differs from recent conservative presidents (Of course, Trump is probably lying about his isolationism... after all, he supported the Iraq invasion - But lies when he claims he didn't. He Supported air strikes in Libya. And he wants to take on ISIS militarily.)

If it were not for the alternative media...

Ah yes, the "alternative media"... the same source of information that tells us Elvis is alive and that UFOs and bigfoot exist.

You were challenged before to provide a list of these "alternative" sources that you seem to be listening to. Strangely, you did not.

...we would not know anything about Hillary and her crimes which appear are being purposely covered up and sugar coated to make them look like she has done nothing wrong at all.

You are of course assuming that what appears in those "alternative" sources is actually correct. Given the rather shoddy error checking, its likely that those sources are wrong about most of the criticisms they post about Clinton.

There is tons of bad stuff on Hillary being spoken about, but yet you want to make it appear as though it is nothing, and most of it if not all is just a bunch of bull. Darling Hillary is out, and Trump is in. Yes.

And supposedly Trump donated money to NAMBLA. I don't believe it, but people are talking about it. Smart people. The best people.

No one wants a liar and a criminal as President...

Yet you seem to. Its been pointed to you that Trump has lied more often than Clinton. Yet you are absolving Trump of all his lies.

Lets see...

- Trump claimed that he opposed the Iraq war from the start, but we have audio tape of him appearing on a radio program from before the war saying he supports it.

- We have trump claiming the U.S. used bullets dipped in pigs blood to stop a muslim rebellion. But that never happened

- We have trump claming he saw people dancing on the streets in NY after 9/11... which didn't happen

- We have Trump claiming he didn't know who David Duke was, even though just a few years previous he had called Duke a racist

- We have Trump claiming an unemployment rate >40%, even though the only way that would be valid is if they counted retirees and students as 'unemployed'.

...and according to Trump Hillary is all of those. Trump may have done some shady deals in the past but when one is in business, sometimes one has to deal with the devil to get things done.

Can we use the same excuse for Clinton Foundation and their acceptance of money from questionable sources?

The Clinton foundation helped saved thousands of lives and helped thousands more rebuild their lives aver natural disasters. Sure, they accepted money from places like Saudi Arabia, but they needed the cash to help the needy. And "sometimes one has to deal with the devil to get things done".

Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that many of Trumps "shady dealings" were not a case of him dealing with the devil. The people who got scammed by Trump University, or those who got burned in some of Trump's condo fraud were not evil people. They were ordinary everyday folks. Yet Trump sought to take their money.

Yes, Johnny and Susie, conspiracies do exist. Like we have been told that the 9/11 Twin Towers came tumbling down to the ground from a couple of planes hitting them at the top. Really now? Only fools will believe the main scream media lies on that one.

I see.

Could you do me a favor? Every time you make a post, could you also post a reminder to people of your belief in a 9/11 "conspiracy theory"? You see, the vast majority of people recognize that 9/11 occurred when a small group of terrorists hijacked several planes. Eye witness accounts support it. Science and Engineering supports it. More importantly, Occam's razor supports it. Anyone thinking that there was some sort of inside job really isn't engaging with much logic or reasoning. I think it would be good to link "Trump supporter=Fringe conspiracy theory nut".

Trump certainly has built an interesting coalition... Conspiracy nuts, Religious nuts, and overt racists.

[taxme]

True. And you are one of the latter. Along with that loud mouthed ignoramus Trump.

A true conservative is someone who believes in more freedom, less government, and less taxes. Sounds just like me. But just where did you get the idea that I am of the latter? Please explain, if you can?

For Trump being an ignoramus he sure has done quite well making lots of money, and owns lots of property. Are you jealous? So, just how many millions or billions do you have in your bank account, or how much property do you own, uhmm?

[taxme]

Does that include Trump? After all, he:

- Was a registered Democrat for much of the past few decades

- Has praised Hillary Clinton, AND donated money to her campaigns in the past

- Has campaigned against various free trade deals and talked about "bringing jobs back"... traditionally it has been the conservative side that pushes for free trade while it is the left wing that demands protectionist policies.

- Has taken an isolationist stance, again which differs from recent conservative presidents (Of course, Trump is probably lying about his isolationism... after all, he supported the Iraq invasion - But lies when he claims he didn't. He Supported air strikes in Libya. And he wants to take on ISIS militarily.)

Ah yes, the "alternative media"... the same source of information that tells us Elvis is alive and that UFOs and bigfoot exist.

You were challenged before to provide a list of these "alternative" sources that you seem to be listening to. Strangely, you did not.

You are of course assuming that what appears in those "alternative" sources is actually correct. Given the rather shoddy error checking, its likely that those sources are wrong about most of the criticisms they post about Clinton.

And supposedly Trump donated money to NAMBLA. I don't believe it, but people are talking about it. Smart people. The best people.

Yet you seem to. Its been pointed to you that Trump has lied more often than Clinton. Yet you are absolving Trump of all his lies.

Lets see...

- Trump claimed that he opposed the Iraq war from the start, but we have audio tape of him appearing on a radio program from before the war saying he supports it.

- We have trump claiming the U.S. used bullets dipped in pigs blood to stop a muslim rebellion. But that never happened

- We have trump claming he saw people dancing on the streets in NY after 9/11... which didn't happen

- We have Trump claiming he didn't know who David Duke was, even though just a few years previous he had called Duke a racist

- We have Trump claiming an unemployment rate >40%, even though the only way that would be valid is if they counted retirees and students as 'unemployed'.

Can we use the same excuse for Clinton Foundation and their acceptance of money from questionable sources?

The Clinton foundation helped saved thousands of lives and helped thousands more rebuild their lives aver natural disasters. Sure, they accepted money from places like Saudi Arabia, but they needed the cash to help the needy. And "sometimes one has to deal with the devil to get things done".

Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that many of Trumps "shady dealings" were not a case of him dealing with the devil. The people who got scammed by Trump University, or those who got burned in some of Trump's condo fraud were not evil people. They were ordinary everyday folks. Yet Trump sought to take their money.

I see.

Could you do me a favor? Every time you make a post, could you also post a reminder to people of your belief in a 9/11 "conspiracy theory"? You see, the vast majority of people recognize that 9/11 occurred when a small group of terrorists hijacked several planes. Eye witness accounts support it. Science and Engineering supports it. More importantly, Occam's razor supports it. Anyone thinking that there was some sort of inside job really isn't engaging with much logic or reasoning. I think it would be good to link "Trump supporter=Fringe conspiracy theory nut".

Trump certainly has built an interesting coalition... Conspiracy nuts, Religious nuts, and overt racists.

Here are the websites that I visit to get the other side of the story. RT.com/Global Research/The Political Cesspool/IHR/Judge Jeanine Pirro/Paul Craig Roberts/Lionelnation, and Conservative News & Right Wing News for starters. Will that be enough alternative news websites for you to go visit for now and have some fun with?

[JamesHackerMP]

I'm going to have to stick my neck out and ask why this discussion doesn't include Gov. Johnson? I know the starter of this thread said if it comes down to Trump v. Hillary but you have to admit, a wild card has been thrown into it all of a sudden. Sort of changes the polarized discussion a bit.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not Gov. Johnson ? For the same reason most of these folks don't remember Ross Perot, John Anderson, or George Wallace.

[JamesHackerMP]

George Wallace actually came fairly close to pulling it off. Not by becoming the President himself, but by picking up enough states to play "kingmaker" by deadlocking the electoral college.

This election year does seem a little different. It's like the "perfect storm" for someone like Johnson to jump in and, for once, pull it off. As laughable as that sounds to mainstream Democrats and Republicans, the expression "there's a first time for everything" is practically operable, here.

[bush_cheney2004]

George Wallace actually came fairly close to pulling it off. Not by becoming the President himself, but by picking up enough states to play "kingmaker" by deadlocking the electoral college.

Yes...Gov. Wallace carried 5 states and 46 EC votes....got almost 10,000,000 votes.

This election year does seem a little different. It's like the "perfect storm" for someone like Johnson to jump in and, for once, pull it off. As laughable as that sounds to mainstream Democrats and Republicans, the expression "there's a first time for everything" is practically operable, here.

I will probably end up voting Libertarian this time. Johnson could definitely tip some swing states either way...far more than Nader or Buchanan in Florida (2000 election).

[JamesHackerMP]

Would be neat to see what happens if the EC were to deadlock....or maybe not.

[Scott Mayers]

The timing of all the natural disasters in the U.S., AND the rest of the world, will likely favor Hillary by default since the demand of the majority will be to social concerns. The Nationalists extremes of both political sides are paramount though. If only based on population, this will also mean that the Democrats WILL win. However, for those of us who can't stand ANY form of Nationalism, Hillary is still the best representative as she is clearly NOT biased upon ethnic, cultural, or sexist grounds personally. What matters more may be to the elections in House of Representatives though. To the Nationalists, it doesn't matter as much WHO becomes president as to their reliance on Representatives and the Senate.

[JamesHackerMP]

Nationalists?

[sharkman]

So is anyone concerned about Hillary's continued health issues and her defensive response, to go on Kimmel and open a pickle jar?

[?Impact]

So is anyone concerned about Hillary's continued health issues and her defensive response, to go on Kimmel and open a pickle jar?

We are more concerned about Trump's health issues. A press release does not suddenly make him healthy, he is about to keel over.

[bush_cheney2004]

We are more concerned about Trump's health issues. A press release does not suddenly make him healthy, he is about to keel over.

Who is "We" ? Clinton's bank account is very healthy now....for obvious reasons.

[sharkman]

It's funny. Hillary is having some serious issues, and no one wants to even talk about it. Her email scandal is really starting to smell. This election is really unique. Each side detests the other candidate so much that no matter who wins, the country will be more polarized than ever. The unrest that Black Lives Matter is stirring up could lead to many riots and murders. The economy is sputtering along, ready to tank, and the bullies of the world, like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are making serious moves and inroads.

What was that old Chinese curse? Something about may you live in interesting times?

[segnosaur]

Here are the websites that I visit to get the other side of the story.

Sweet zombie jesus... that's a rather disturbing set of sources you use.

RT.com

Russia Today... financed by the Russian government (which is headed by Putin). Some people might find it hypocritical for you to condemn Hillary because of support from Goldman Sachs, yet you are giving a free pass to Trump, who's getting support from a foreign government (one that he would have to deal with should he become president.)

Global Research

Ah yes, a site that never met a conspiracy that it didn't like.

The Political Cesspool

Did some googling of them. According to Wikipedia, their statement of principles includes the following:

- America would not be as prosperous, ruggedly individualistic, and a land of opportunity if the founding stock were not Europeans.

- We wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races.

Furthermore, one of their early guest hosts was Bill Rollen, who is involved in the white separatist movement.

Sounds like a bunch of racists. And you are considering them to be a valid source of information.

IHR

You know what, I'm going to stop right there.

The Institute for Historical Review (which I am assuming you meant by IHR) is a neo-Nazi group. Their "research" has been condemned as inaccurate by pretty much every real historian. Their writers include David Irving and Ernest Zundel (both noted holocaust deniers).

If you listen to what neo-Nazis say, and you say "This is a good source of information", then you should take a good long look at what exactly your political beliefs are.

[segnosaur]

It's funny. Hillary is having some serious issues, and no one wants to even talk about it.

You see, the problem is that most of the "talk" around Hillary Clinton involves rather idiotic comments, backed up by bizarre conspiracy theories, put forward by religious nuts and followers of neo-Nazis and other racists.

Even if there are valid issues to discuss around Clinton, any valid issues will get drowned out by the stupidity. The Signal to Noise ration is rather low.

Her email scandal is really starting to smell.

Errr... not really.

I'm not denying she made mistakes in handling the situation. But the only ones who seem to be making a big issue out of it are Trump supporters. And its hard to get worked up over the issue of her emails when her opponent is a man who seems to have no grasp on how the government works.

This election is really unique. Each side detests the other candidate so much that no matter who wins, the country will be more polarized than ever.

Yes, there is a lot of polarization.

Personally, I blame the Republicans... for years, they've encouraged people like the Tea Party and the religious right. Then they go and obstruct Obama as much as they can (for example, saying they won't accept any Supreme court nominations to replace Scalia), thus enforcing the belief that "government doesn't work". That set the stage for the rise of Trump. And now that they have the Orange Goblin as their nominee, those running the Republican party are in panic mode, asking themselves "How did this happen?"

The unrest that Black Lives Matter is stirring up could lead to many riots and murders.

Actually, I think the bigger risk comes from those on the political right.

Remember, Trump has been the one setting the stage, talking about "rigged elections", warning people that Hillary will "take their guns". It seems like a recipe for disaster.

The economy is sputtering along, ready to tank...

Well, the U.S. GDP grew at a rate of 1.1%. Slightly less than predicted, but the economy is still growing. Jobs growth and consumer spending are also fairly strong. So, I don't think the U.S. economy is in any danger of collapsing any time soon.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/26/economy-grew-feeble-11-second-quarter/89362994/

...and the bullies of the world, like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are making serious moves and inroads.

Yes they are. And given that fact, I would rather have Hillary Clinton in charge, who has experience as secretary of state.

I would not like to have Trump as president, given that he:

- May have Financial ties to Russia (at the very least he's praised Putin). I'd rather have a leader who can deal with Russia without such baggage (Yes, I recognize that the clinton foundation accepted contributions from foreign governments, but that pales in comparison to a president who's entire financial empire could collapse should foreign investors call in loans)

- Has shown a lack of knowledge regarding history and geopolitics (His "pigs-blood bullets" claim, his "Russians in Ukraine" mistakes, etc.)

- Has been wildly inconsistent and outright deceptive... non-interventionalist, yet wants to bomb Libya and ISIS. Claims he was against invading Iraq even though he was on record as supporting the invasion before it happened. And I'm not talking about someone's opinions changing over years; we're talking about him holding these contrary views during this very election

[bush_cheney2004]

It is becoming more and more obvious that the private e-mail server "mistake" and Clinton foundation "pay to play" donations for access to State are very much linked together. The Clinton campaign will fight to delay release of FBI recovered e-mails and testimony as long as possible, but Hillary Clinton has created her own October surprise.

[segnosaur]

It is becoming more and more obvious that the private e-mail server "mistake" and Clinton foundation "pay to play" donations for access to State are very much linked together. The Clinton campaign will fight to delay release of FBI recovered e-mails and testimony as long as possible, but Hillary Clinton has created her own October surprise.

If you don't mind, I think we'll dump that particular opinion into the bin of "pro-Trump fantasy".

That seems to be a common theme... claim that "Hillary is done". Then, when everything is properly analyzed, it is found that there was nothing serious. For example:

- Clinton caused the deaths of people in Benghazi! Multiple republican inquiries later, nothing was found.

- Clinton is going to be arrested for having her own email server! One FBI investigation (involving, I might add, a Republican), and what do we have? Nothing criminal. She didn't do things right, but not anything arrestible.

I suspect the whole "pay to play" thing will go the same way... "Clinton is done! She'll be arrested for influence peddling!" (Several months and investigations later) Ok, that didn't work... what else can we try to pin on her?

[bush_cheney2004]

If you don't mind, I think we'll dump that particular opinion into the bin of "pro-Trump fantasy".

That seems to be a common theme... claim that "Hillary is done".

Quite to the contrary, Clinton is not "done", not even in a Trump fantasy. But what she has done is left the door open for a Trump candidacy that should have been dispatched long ago. Only partisan hacks can pretend that Clinton does not have a serious political problem for someone who is so much "better qualified" and "experienced".

The Clinton's left the White House very much in debt, largely because of legal problems, judgements, and settlements. Now they are worth more than $100,000,000 USD.

Edited August 26, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[segnosaur]

Quite to the contrary, Clinton is not "done", not even in a Trump fantasy. But what she has done is left the door open for a Trump candidacy that should have been dispatched long ago. Only partisan hacks can pretend that Clinton does not have a serious political problem for someone who is so much "better qualified" and "experienced".

By "partisan hacks", I assume you are referring to "people who don't want Trump to be president".

The only ones who think the email "pay to play' scandal has "left the door open" are Trump supporters who are hoping for a hail Mary. Even they though can't really produce any sort of evidence, or anything more solid than "Boo hillary! Investigate her!"

The Clinton's left the White House very much in debt, largely because of legal problems, judgements, and settlements. Now they are worth more than $100,000,000 USD.

That the Clintons are wealthy is not in doubt. How they got that way is well publicized.... speaking fees, book royalties, etc. The tax returns show that they do not draw a salary from the Clinton Foundation. If the Clintons were engaging in "pay for play" in order to enrich their bank accounts, they certainly weren't doing a very good job at it.

I think it is very telling that Trump supporters are making a big deal of this... The Clinton foundation has a good reputation as a charity... they've been rated as one of the most efficient, and have helped with a wide range of global problems... hurricane relief, HIV treatments, etc. It has also gotten bipartisan support, with the involvement or support of many Republicans. Yet Trump supporters see such a charity as a negative. (Not to mention the charitable reputation of their own nominee is less than stellar, even to the point of him LYING about having made contributions.)

Well, of course there is a question about whether if Trump contributed to NAMBLA that it would be considered a 'charitable contribution'. I don't believe that he did, but people are talking about it. Good people. Smart people.

[bush_cheney2004]

By "partisan hacks", I assume you are referring to "people who don't want Trump to be president".

No, I am referring to partisanship on any side...even those who can't vote in the election.

The only ones who think the email "pay to play' scandal has "left the door open" are Trump supporters who are hoping for a hail Mary. Even they though can't really produce any sort of evidence, or anything more solid than "Boo hillary! Investigate her!"

Then why is Clinton on the defensive for these matters ? Why is it still a problem for the campaign if not pressed by more than just "Trump supporters" ? Republicans who do not support Trump also think Clinton should be investigated. A federal judge has ruled in favour of Judicial Watch's lawsuit to gain access to private server emails that were deleted or not disclosed to the FBI.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN1102JY

I think it is very telling that Trump supporters are making a big deal of this... The Clinton foundation has a good reputation as a charity... they've been rated as one of the most efficient, and have helped with a wide range of global problems... hurricane relief, HIV treatments, etc.

Anyone who proposes that the efficacy of the Clinton Foundation would/should justify what has been alleged does not understand the political problem and liability. The mere appearance of such things is cause for doubt and suspicion. Haiti is still waiting for Clinton Foundation promises to materialize.

Edited August 26, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Sweet zombie jesus... that's a rather disturbing set of sources you use.

If you listen to what neo-Nazis say, and you say "This is a good source of information", then you should take a good long look at what exactly your political beliefs are.

This is why it's so funny watching Argus try to distance himself from the stuff taxme puts forth.

[segnosaur]

So is anyone concerned about Hillary's continued health issues...

Not really. There was another thread regarding Hillary's health... I'll say the same thing here that I did there....

There is no real issue with Clinton's health. Whatever medications she is taking and the tests results that were provided show no indication that her ability to be president will be impaired. The only ones showing 'concern' about her health are Trump supporters, who are desperately trying to throw everything against Clinton in the hope that something will stick.

...and her defensive response, to go on Kimmel and open a pickle jar?

The claims about Clinton being sick are ridiculous. When confronted with such an idiotic claim, sometimes the best way to address it is to use humor, in hope that others will see how silly the issue is.

[Kiraly]

Abe Lincoln doesn't appear to like either....

...suggests another option:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

[taxme]

Sweet zombie jesus... that's a rather disturbing set of sources you use.

Russia Today... financed by the Russian government (which is headed by Putin). Some people might find it hypocritical for you to condemn Hillary because of support from Goldman Sachs, yet you are giving a free pass to Trump, who's getting support from a foreign government (one that he would have to deal with should he become president.)

Ah yes, a site that never met a conspiracy that it didn't like.

Did some googling of them. According to Wikipedia, their statement of principles includes the following:

- America would not be as prosperous, ruggedly individualistic, and a land of opportunity if the founding stock were not Europeans.

- We wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races.

Furthermore, one of their early guest hosts was Bill Rollen, who is involved in the white separatist movement.

Sounds like a bunch of racists. And you are considering them to be a valid source of information.

You know what, I'm going to stop right there.

The Institute for Historical Review (which I am assuming you meant by IHR) is a neo-Nazi group. Their "research" has been condemned as inaccurate by pretty much every real historian. Their writers include David Irving and Ernest Zundel (both noted holocaust deniers).

If you listen to what neo-Nazis say, and you say "This is a good source of information", then you should take a good long look at what exactly your political beliefs are.

Sweet zombie jesus, what politically correct elite globalist websites do you visit anyway? I would prefer to listen to those websites that I posted because they make a lot more common sense and logic than the crap of information that you must be getting from those lying scumbag globalists that peddle the bull that you obviously read. Yup, in your words, if I did not read that on my official websites than what those other websites have are saying nothing more than a bunch of racists, nazi nonsense, and full of conspiracy bull. I luv it when people start throwing in the racist nazi bigot crap because then I know that what I am reading from those websites must be good. It's the old elite globalist tactic that when you cannot win the debate then you attack and insult your opponent and try to get at them that way. They have you but they don't have me. Too bad for you.