Donald vs Hillary

[taxme]

The recent open letter from 50 security "experts" on Donald Trump is worth a read:

Letter

50 security? so-called? experts? paid big bucks by the Democratic Party of America and the globalist elite to once again try and frighten away the voters from voting for Trump. It's endless with these people. They are running scared. Hopefully, it will all end when Trump becomes President.

[kimmy]

Yeah, just a bunch of nobodies like Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, and John Negroponte.

-k

[segnosaur]

50 security? so-called? experts?

Those experts include people involved with the state department, with trade negotiations, and the intelligence community. So yeah, I think many (most) people would be considered "experts", or at least more knowledgable than your average voter..

...paid big bucks by the Democratic Party of America...

And your proof of that is what?

Actually, the experts in question all spent at least some time working for Republican administrations. Yet despite the fact that they worked republicans in the past, they have all decided that they don't want the current republican nominee to become president. That should tell you something.

And lets apply occam's razor here... you claim that they were paid "big bucks" by the democratic party. (Without proof I might add.) First of all, what exactly does that say about Republicans in general if so many were able to be bribed? And if the Democrats were running around offering all this bribe money, how come no other security experts came forward and said "they tried to bribe me"? Did each and every person they approached agree to their bribe? That's some rather impressive selection there.

...and the globalist elite to once again try and frighten away the voters from voting for Trump.

Of course they're trying to frighten away the voters for voting for Trump. That's because they see his policies and the way he conducts himself as detrimental to the U.S.

The issue isn't whether its right to "frighten voters" (whatever that means, since any attempt to point out faults in one candidate might be considered "frightening"). The issue is whether they have a valid reason for taking that stance. Based on the experience they have and the way Drumph has presented himself, they probably have a point. There is a difference between making false allegations in order to appeal only to fear (as Drumph often does... "Obama is a Muslim! Hillary is coming for your guns") and actually examining the policies and background of a candidate and coming to the conclusion "this is something to avoid".

[Guest]

paid big bucks by the Democratic Party of America and the globalist elite to once again try and frighten away the voters from voting for Trump. It's endless with these people. They are running scared. Hopefully, it will all end when Trump becomes President.

Why is it that the lunatic fringe that support Trump always refer to the elite as an enemy, yet don't bat an eye when most of his economic proposals are a shopping list for billionaire elites?

[segnosaur]

Re: Trump "doing what he says...

(1)Well, the veterans don't feel so about Trump. The Veterans association have said that they will support and vote for Trump.

Why is that relevant?

The question that was raised was not whether trump was supported by a particular group. The question that was raised was whether trump "Does what he says". I gave more than 1 example... claiming he raised money for vetran's charities was one, failure to give money he promised to medical charities is another. That is the issue... whether Trump follows through on what he says and the promises he makes. Evidence suggests he does not.

Now, if Veterans groups are willing to overlook his claim to raise charity money for them, they certainly have that right. But that doesn't mean Trump followed through on his promise.

And how do you really know that he did not give any money from one of his books to charities?

Well, news organizations followed up on his promise by contacting the charities and found no evidence that any such donation had been made.

And Hillary spends lots of her charity money on many other expenses that has nothing to do with charity. Who says some of that money does not go into her pocket?

Ah yes... so, you claimed that most of the money raised by the Clinton foundation was wastefully spent. I provided evidence that it was rated as one of the best/most efficient charities (even rated higher than the red cross!) at delivering aid to people that need it. Yet for some reason you decide to insinuate once again (and without any sort of real evidence I might add) that charity money is "going into her pocket".

So, you know for a fact and are saying that Trump used charity money for his kids ballet classes? Hey, that is quite the accusation. Better prove that one.

Seriously? It was in one of the links that I provided.

Why should anyone listen to what you say if you wont even bother reading anyone else's references?

Giving the exact same link I gave before: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

IOne case in point was the promise, made in the promotion of “The Art of the Deal,” that Trump would give royalties “to the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis.” He did give to those causes — but not very much... He gave $12,450 to AIDS charities.... Much of the rest went to charities tied to Trump’s life: society galas, his high school, his college, a foundation for indigent real estate brokers. The School of American Ballet, where Ivanka Trump studied from 1989 to 1991, got $16,750. A private school that educated Trump’s son Eric got $40,000 — more than the homeless and AIDS contributions combined

Yet for some reason you seem to be more concerned about Clinton's charity work.

(2)So, Trump hired someone from Goldman Sachs, so what? Maybe Trump wants and saw in Mnuchin a person who will help Trump with the running of Trumps many businesses that he is involved with.

Ummm... what?

Trump did not hire Mnuchin to help run his businesses. He selected him as an economic advisor should he get elected president.

So, one of the people that helped cause the economic meltdown of 2008 will be giving advice to Trump on how to run the country.

Its a little like getting cooking tips from Jeffery Dahmer.

Trump must have considered him the man for his jobs. Maybe this guy had enough of working for the banksters, and wanted out. Who knows. Only Trump and Mnuchin know why.

Don't you find it a little hypocritical that you will automatically assume the best of Mnuchin (hey, he helped cause one of the biggest economic collapses in U.S. history, but lets assume he's really a good guy) but will condemn Clinton?

(3)From my understanding from what I have read on some alternative media websites...

Ahh... alternative media... such a fine source of information, where you can find all sorts of useful facts, like the fact that Bigfoot is alive, and that there are government conspiracies to cover up UFOs.

Here's the thing... the mainstream media is not perfect... they do sometimes get stories wrong (especially on breaking news). But, more often as not, they get things right (and often correct things when errors are found). When dealing with "alternative" media, you often find a much more pronounced bias, and much shoddier investigation.

But hey, why don't you enlighten us with some of your "alternative media" sources? And if you think such alternative sources are acceptable, what about sites like "Daily Kos"? (Its a questionable left-wing site that I would typically ignore, but if you seem to think that "alternative media" is acceptable for information, shouldn't you give the same acceptance to sites you disagree with?

is that Hillary is getting plenty of money from Goldman Sachs to help her run for President.

Yes she is. She is also getting support from other wall-street firms, unions, people in the entertainment industry, etc.

The fact that she is getting money from the banking industry does not mean she is beholden to them. From the bank's view, they probably see Hillary as the lesser of 2 evils.

Besides, typically candidates generally hope to win more than 1 election. Trying to appease one of her donors is likely going to torpedo any chance she might have in future elections.

But who knows what will happen if she does become President. Maybe she will help the banksters start another 2008 down the road. She will be in debt to them for helping her, and must pay up sometime in the future. Hey, with politics one never knows.

Here's what I find hypocritical... Hillary has (as part of her policy) plans to keep existing regulations in place, and even add new regulations to prevent risk. Its right there in her platform.

Trump has said that he is going to lessen regulations, returning us to the situation we had pre-2008. And he is getting economic advice from one of the people that caused the 2008 meltdown.

And you still seem to accuse Hillary of being the one that would "start another 2008".

Oh, and speaking of being "in debt", did you know that Donald Trump owes millions to foreign banks, including Deutsche Bank of Germany (an organization that has been fined repeatedly for breaking U.S. laws). So unlike Hillary, where she has received money from Wall Street corporations but has no real ties, Trump actually could be in severe financial difficulty. In other words, Trump is in a much more significant conflict of interest.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/21/donald-trump-bank-loans/

(4)I am a little suspicious of Pence myself. I don't know much about him.

There are 2 things you need to know about Pence...

1) he is a hard-right social conservative, who is against gay marriage and in support of "conversion therapy" (basically "pray away the gay", a rather abusive tactic used by religious groups.) Trump selected him, then during the convention made the claim that he would "Protect" the LGBTQ community. The fact that he would both pick someone who is anti-gay yet claim he would support gay people is generally seen as hypocritcial

2) He voted for the Iraq war. Trump said it was OK because "everyone makes a mistake". Yet he regularly condemns Hillary for voting for the war. Another act of hypocrisy. (Never mind the fact that Trump himself supported the war, something he regularly lies about.)

I would have preferred for Trump to have appointed Ben Carson or Pat Buchanon as one of his Vice-Presidents as both men appear to be very honest, intelligent and knowledgeable people about politics.

Ben "stabby stabby" carson? You claim he's honest and knowledgeable about politics, even though he's never been a senator or congress-critter?

Buchanon may be more knowledgeable about politics, but he's also anti-gay, anti-evolution and wants prayer in schools.

They are not establishment sucks.

Ah yes, the whole "outsider" rhetoric.

You see, here's the thing... running a government is not easy. A good leader should have knowledge of both the rules/procedures of the office, and the various individuals with whom they may interact. Just like any profession... experience can be an asset. Although its easy to condemn "the establishment", putting someone in place with no experience and little knowledge may not necessarily be a good thing, as they could easily make costly mistakes when trying to learn the ropes.

So root for lying and corrupt Hillary then.

No politician will be perfect. I certainly recognize that hillary has flaws. But whatever flaws she has, Trumps are greater.

Of course all those stories we have heard about lying corrupt Hillary are not suppose to be true, eh?

Some of the stories are true. Other stories are either false, or embellishments by Trump or other republicans. Its politics.

Trump just said those words for fun, uhmm?

Trump said those words because he has the mentality of a schoolyard bully and is unable to put together a decent coherent set of policies. So instead he has to resort to slander and personal attacks.

Oh, and you know what else Trump has said? Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman....I know her very well and I know her husband very well, and I like them both…They are just really terrific people...smart, tough and a very nice person. She really works hard, and I think she does a good job. I know Hillary and I think she’d make a great president,”

http://time.com/4417151/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-ad-praise/

We all have heard about and know Hillary's record in government, and a lot of it is all not so great.

True, some of it is not that great. On the other hand, some if it is actually pretty good... As secretary of state brokering a cease fire between Israel and Palestine, built up networks to ensure the State department was not isolated, a push for freedom of the Internet.

It is obvious that you like Hillary and despise Trump and that is your right. But don't come on here and try to point out faults all the time about Trump when your little darling Hillary has just has many faults, if not more, in her closet.

No, she doesn't.

Trump has:

- Lied more than Clinton (According to Politifact, 54% of the statements Trump has made were classified as outright lies. With Clinton its 13%)

- A far less successful record in the business world than you might think. (His "wealth" is actually less than it would have been had he taken the money he had back in the 80s and just stuck it in an index fund.)

Neither one may be perfect but how can Trump becoming President can make things any worse?

Well, Trump can make it worse by:

- Having terrible economic policies - getting rid of free trade agreements, eliminating banking regulations which could cause a repeat of 2008's meltdown, and a plan that will add $10 trillion to the U.S. debt, mostly through tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. (Clinton's plans may also increase the debt, but by a tiny fraction of what Trump's plans will.)

- Having bad foreign policies - He seems to be willing to let Russia have whatever it wants, and at one time wanted the U.S. to engage in war crimes

- Having domestic policies that are doomed to fail - Building a wall that will cost billions but will ultimately be ineffective, trying to stop muslims visiting

- By being willing to make idiotic comments, either because he doesn't know better (i.e.soldiers will commit war crimes "if he tells them to"), or because he is inarticulate. That sort of thing will alienate both foreign leaders (with which Trump will have to interact with) and national politicians.

So much of what trump has given is empty promises... He'll talk about ripping up trade deals and negotiating "deals that are great" but doesn't give any details on how he will do so (especially since he's likely to annoy any foreign leader from his over-the-top rhetoric). He talks about "defeating ISIS", but doesn't really lay out any plans to do so.

[segnosaur]

Hey, I just heard that the reason Trump didn't release his tax records is because it contains information that he donated to NAMBLA.

Some people are saying it, so it must be true.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/many-people-are-saying-donald-trump-donated-to-nambla.html

This is kind of like the way Trump always talks about how "people are saying" or "He heard that" Obama is a secret muslim or that the unemployment rate is 42%. Neither is true, but the repetition of the claims, along with the ability to avoid any sort of verification (because its just what "people are saying" allows him to make false allegations with impunity.

[cybercoma]

Lots of people are talking about his NAMBLA donations. Smart people. People who know things. I'm not saying he donated to NAMBLA. I really don't know. But people are talking about it.

[Argus]

Why is it that the lunatic fringe that support Trump always refer to the elite as an enemy, yet don't bat an eye when most of his economic proposals are a shopping list for billionaire elites?

Don't you understand trickle down economics, you fool!?

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/trickle-down-economics-total-horseshit-2/

[Guest]

Don't you understand trickle down economics, you fool!?

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/trickle-down-economics-total-horseshit-2/

Nice.

[kimmy]

Lots of people are talking about his NAMBLA donations. Smart people. People who know things. I'm not saying he donated to NAMBLA. I really don't know. But people are talking about it.

A lot of people are talking about it. I don't know if it's true or not. How can we know if it's true until we see his tax returns?

-k

[kimmy]

So the latest thing going around is the possibility that the Republican National Convention is going to pull its resources out of Trump's campaign for presidency to focus on trying to help Republicans win their races for congress or senate.

There was a rumor going around that RNC chairman Rince Priebus called Trump and read him the riot act, threatening to pull RNC resources from Trump unless Trump gets his shit together and stops going off-message. However, both Trump's people and the RNC people are denying such a conversation took place.

-k

[Smoke]

Wow, the elites on both sides don't want Trump....shocking I tell ya shocking....

[The_Squid]

Wow, the elites on both sides don't want Trump....shocking I tell ya shocking....

What's an "elite"?

[kimmy]

Wow, the elites on both sides don't want Trump....shocking I tell ya shocking....

Well if the elites think he's bad, then that must mean he's good!

-k

[segnosaur]

So the latest thing going around is the possibility that the Republican National Convention is going to pull its resources out of Trump's campaign...

-k

Really? I thought the latest thing going around was that Trump was going to use military courts for Civilians charged with terrorism (something that might actually be unconstitutional) as well as send Americans to Guantanamo.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-military-courts-election-2016/index.html

[segnosaur]

Stay classy, Trump supporters....

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/11/confederate-flag-donald-trumps-flies-florida-rally.html

A Confederate flag with Trump’s name on it hangs at his Orlando, Florida rally.

[cybercoma]

Well if the elites think he's bad, then that must mean he's good!

-k

That's about the level of intelligence I'm seeing from Trump supporters. It's the all dogs are animals; therefore, all animals are dogs kind of logic. Edited August 12, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Stay classy, Trump supporters....

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/11/confederate-flag-donald-trumps-flies-florida-rally.html

A Confederate flag with Trump’s name on it hangs at his Orlando, Florida rally.

Dont worry, people will be along any minute now to tell you the Confederate Flag is about states' rights. Of course, they won't reference those states' statements during the Civil War about which rights those are because then they'd have to admit that it really is about slavery and black oppression.

[segnosaur]

Dont worry, people will be along any minute now to tell you the Confederate Flag is about states' rights. Of course, they won't reference those states' statements during the Civil War about which rights those are because then they'd have to admit that it really is about slavery and black oppression.

And of course the irony of supporting a candidate with the slogan "Make America great again!" by linking him with the confederacy, a group that actually fought against America and tried to separate.

[cybercoma]

Brilliant!

[TimG]

That's about the level of intelligence I'm seeing from Trump supporters. It's the all dogs are animals; therefore, all animals are dogs kind of logic.

Of course the "elites" (specifically left wing talking heads) who always try to shut down any POV that disagrees with their canon as "racist" or "anti-science" need to take some responsibility for Trump because they created an environment where they failed to distinguish between the reasonable and the unreasonable. Of course, I am not not expecting change because the left wing elites rival Trump when it comes to complete blindness to the consequences of the actions.

[GostHacked]

Hey, I just heard that the reason Trump didn't release his tax records is because it contains information that he donated to NAMBLA.

Some people are saying it, so it must be true.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/many-people-are-saying-donald-trump-donated-to-nambla.html

This is kind of like the way Trump always talks about how "people are saying" or "He heard that" Obama is a secret muslim or that the unemployment rate is 42%. Neither is true, but the repetition of the claims, along with the ability to avoid any sort of verification (because its just what "people are saying" allows him to make false allegations with impunity.

National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes (South Park).

[Argus]

Wow, the elites on both sides don't want Trump....shocking I tell ya shocking....

You mean the smart people?

[Argus]

Of course the "elites" (specifically left wing talking heads) who always try to shut down any POV that disagrees with their canon as "racist" or "anti-science" need to take some responsibility for Trump because they created an environment where they failed to distinguish between the reasonable and the unreasonable. Of course, I am not not expecting change because the left wing elites rival Trump when it comes to complete blindness to the consequences of the actions.

There is some of that, but I think his success is mainly due to the political class ignoring long held grievances, mainly about the lack of economic support to the industrial heartland which has been hit so badly by technological change and imports, and the widespread resentment over the massive illegal immigration which has been going on for so long.

[cybercoma]

Of course the "elites" (specifically left wing talking heads) who always try to shut down any POV that disagrees with their canon as "racist" or "anti-science" need to take some responsibility for Trump because they created an environment where they failed to distinguish between the reasonable and the unreasonable. Of course, I am not not expecting change because the left wing elites rival Trump when it comes to complete blindness to the consequences of the actions.

First of all, it's pathetically whiny to characterize criticism as shutting down other POVs. It's also massively hypocritical, since it implies that there shouldn't be criticism of people's POVs. That actually is an effort to shut down criticism and thereby shut down not only other POVs but any sort of discussion.

More importantly, your "leftist elites" BS is completely wrong and easily refuted by the number of conservatives who vocally oppose Trump themselves.