Donald vs Hillary

[Ash74]

Watching these two weak people duke it out for the most powerful position is a sad state of affairs.

Lincoln was right

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Watching the U.S right now is like watching an alcoholic drinks themselves to death. We all know it is not going to end well.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Ash74

[bush_cheney2004]

Watching these two weak people duke it out for the most powerful position is a sad state of affairs.

...Watching the U.S right now is like watching an alcoholic drinks themselves to death. We all know it is not going to end well.

Perhaps, but no matter what happens it will be decided by Americans. The USA has survived far worse, and grown stronger because of it...just ask President Lincoln.

This is just another presidential election, and most Americans don't view it the way many foreigners do. The union is stronger than any one president or election cycle. I think member August1991 put it best years ago....nobody is going to rescue the USA....that's an idea some Canadians think of so poor candidates scare them.

Edited September 7, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

This is just another presidential election, and most Americans don't view it the way many foreigners do. The union is stronger than any one president or election cycle.

That's true, but decades of poor leadership can still cause irreversible damage.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...who knows....there might be a 300' face on Mt Trumpmore, yet.

[segnosaur]

Trumps latest victims: Preteen Girls.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/06/usa-freedom-girls-sue-trump-campaign-for-stiffing-them.html

So here's what happened:

- Trump's campaign got a preteen musical/dance group called "Freedom Girls" to perform at one of his rallies

- Instead of paying them, they were promised they could sell merchandise (e.g. T-shirts) at the event to recover their costs

- When they got there, they were forbidden from bringing their stuff into the hall (They performed anyways)

- They were later supposed to appear at a second rally but the organizers canceled

- The group is now suing the Trump campaign

Now, I have to admit, I'm kind of split on this....

On one hand, its another example of how Trump is a pretty horrible person.

On the other hand, the group was appearing at a Trump rally. What did they think was going to happen. Never mind that they were going to be performing for a group largely composed of racists (kind of hard to have sympathy for that)... but they seem to have forgotten that Trump is a scam artist. Cheating people is actually part of his business plan. (See: Trump University.) What did their management think was going to happen?

Getting cheated by Trump is a little like a black person showing up at a Trump rally and being surprised by all the racists.

Edited September 7, 2016 by segnosaur

[DogOnPorch]

Having dealt with many groups/bands/etc back in the 90s...don't let those guys fool you re: their complete innocence. There's something we're not seeing here re: their contract. Not that Trump wouldn't screw 'em...but I've been screwed by musical groups in kind.....

[segnosaur]

Having dealt with many groups/bands/etc back in the 90s...don't let those guys fool you re: their complete innocence. There's something we're not seeing here re: their contract. Not that Trump wouldn't screw 'em...but I've been screwed by musical groups in kind.....

The article points out that the girls did not have a written contract (which again, when dealing with a scam artist like Trump is a mistake). They do however have emails pointing to the (broken) agreement to allow them to sell merchandise at the rallies.

If the Trump campaign did pay for their performances, it would be quite easy for them to provide proof... a cancelled check, a bank statement, etc. And we certainly do have proof that the girls did perform... it was in front of a large rally and has been captured on video. I'd have to say the evidence is in favor of the plaintiffs.

[overthere]

The article points out that the girls did not have a written contract (which again, when dealing with a scam artist like Trump is a mistake). They do however have emails pointing to the (broken) agreement to allow them to sell merchandise at the rallies.

If the Trump campaign did pay for their performances, it would be quite easy for them to provide proof... a cancelled check, a bank statement, etc. And we certainly do have proof that the girls did perform... it was in front of a large rally and has been captured on video. I'd have to say the evidence is in favor of the plaintiffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

Watch the video of their performance. If I was Trump and had written a cheque, I'd cancel payment. Wow.

[segnosaur]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

Watch the video of their performance. If I was Trump and had written a cheque, I'd cancel payment. Wow.

I don't think the girls were brought in for their raw musical talent. They were brought in to look like nice young girls that people can go "Awww, how cute.... USA! USA!". Regardless of how well they did, they still performed as requested, and the Trump campaign obviously thought they did well enough to schedule a second performance.

[segnosaur]

So, Trump has stated that one of his first acts should he become president is to tell the military to "come up with a plan to defeat ISIS" within 30 days.

As one retired general has said: "had to ask myself, what the hell does he think we've been trying to do for the last 14 years in terms of al Qaeda?"

Trump also supposedly has the support of 88 former military leaders. Which makes you wonder... why 88? Couldn't they find one more, or cross one name off the list? Just so you know, 88 is a sort of inside code for neo-Nazis... 8 being the 8th letter of the alphabet, so HH is heil hitler. You would think that a campaign that is dogged by accusations of being racist (mostly on account of actually being racist) would be careful enough to avoid that sort of thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/mark-hertling-trump-30-day-isis-plan/index.html

[segnosaur]

Looks like Trump might be under a little more scrutiny for possibly bribing a Florida politician.

Trump's "foundation" recently got into trouble because they made a donation to a political candidate. This in itself is bad (charitable organizations are not supposed to be funding politics), and they had to pay a fine.

The second problem is... the politician that they donated to was Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. At the time, the Florida government was looking into complaints against Drumph over Trump University (something New York brought charges over). Following Trump's donation, Bondi dropped the case.

Now, it could just be a coincidence. (After all, New York had more complaints against Trump than Florida.) But, keep in mind that Trump is the one who said: "When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.".

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492857874/trump-dismisses-questions-over-donation-tied-to-florida-attorney-general

[Argus]

Perhaps, but no matter what happens it will be decided by Americans. The USA has survived far worse,

Who was a worse president than Trump is likely to be?

[bush_cheney2004]

That's true, but decades of poor leadership can still cause irreversible damage.

Yep....that's the American way, and it will be decided by American voters. The U.S. didn't get to be a super power by never damaging anything.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who was a worse president than Trump is likely to be?

Trump is not the president. The worse U.S. president is generally considered to be Andrew Johnson, who was impeached just like Bill Clinton. But rankings change.....in 2004, many people whined that George W. Bush was the worst, but he was re-elected.

[DogOnPorch]

The article points out that the girls did not have a written contract (which again, when dealing with a scam artist like Trump is a mistake). They do however have emails pointing to the (broken) agreement to allow them to sell merchandise at the rallies.

If the Trump campaign did pay for their performances, it would be quite easy for them to provide proof... a cancelled check, a bank statement, etc. And we certainly do have proof that the girls did perform... it was in front of a large rally and has been captured on video. I'd have to say the evidence is in favor of the plaintiffs.

Sounds pretty shady to begin with. If they're that principled, etc...don't play Trump rallies.

[segnosaur]

Sounds pretty shady to begin with. If they're that principled, etc...don't play Trump rallies.

Even racists and bigots deserve entertainment. Why do you hate America?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Trump's campaign should hire the band "Black Pussy" next time.

[Guest]

Looks like Trump might be under a little more scrutiny for possibly bribing a Florida politician.

Trump's "foundation" recently got into trouble because they made a donation to a political candidate. This in itself is bad (charitable organizations are not supposed to be funding politics), and they had to pay a fine.

The second problem is... the politician that they donated to was Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. At the time, the Florida government was looking into complaints against Drumph over Trump University (something New York brought charges over). Following Trump's donation, Bondi dropped the case.

Now, it could just be a coincidence. (After all, New York had more complaints against Trump than Florida.) But, keep in mind that Trump is the one who said: "When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.".

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/06/492857874/trump-dismisses-questions-over-donation-tied-to-florida-attorney-general

On top of the hidden $25K donation, Trump also gave $125K to the Florida GOP, Bondi's largest source of campaign funds, and he threw a big fundraiser for her at Mar-a-lago. The interesting part about the fundraiser is Donald charges his own campaign $140K per event held there but only charged Bondi's campaign $5K; a $135K discount. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-pam-bondi-trump-university_us_57cf2c6ce4b0a48094a64854

Edited September 7, 2016 by Guest

[eyeball]

Watching the U.S right now is like watching an alcoholic drinks themselves to death. We all know it is not going to end well.

I've seen the world became a better place after a drunk drank themselves to death.

[segnosaur]

On top of the hidden $25K donation, Trump also gave $125K to the Florida GOP, Bondi's largest source of campaign funds, and he threw a big fundraiser for her at Mar-a-lago. The interesting part about the fundraiser is Donald charges his own campaign $140K per event held there but only charged Bondi's campaign $5K

See? The system is broke! We need Trump to fix it. You know, one of the guys who broke the system in the first place. Or something like that.

[Guest]

Instead of explaining his previous comment that he knew more about the Islamic State than America's generals, Trump instead disparaged those generals by saying they'd been "reduced to rubble." Then he suggested his plan to defeat the Islamic State — long something he said was a secret — would instead be formulated with help from top generals. Then he casually indicated he might just fire most of the generals anyway.

I wonder if Trump is aware that he can't fire generals.

[Argus]

Instead of explaining his previous comment that he knew more about the Islamic State than America's generals, Trump instead disparaged those generals by saying they'd been "reduced to rubble." Then he suggested his plan to defeat the Islamic State — long something he said was a secret — would instead be formulated with help from top generals. Then he casually indicated he might just fire most of the generals anyway.

I wonder if Trump is aware that he can't fire generals.

Yeah, he can, sort of. At the very least he can order them removed from their positions and shipped to somewhere unpleasant doing a nothing, make-work job.

BTW, interesting story in Bloomberg today pointing out the steps a US president needs to take to launch nuclear weapons. They also pointed out that the president can launch them on his own say so and nobody can refuse the order. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

[Guest]

Yeah, he can, sort of. At the very least he can order them removed from their positions and shipped to somewhere unpleasant doing a nothing, make-work job.

BTW, interesting story in Bloomberg today pointing out the steps a US president needs to take to launch nuclear weapons. They also pointed out that the president can launch them on his own say so and nobody can refuse the order. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

Interesting. This system was no doubt setup during the Cold War when the need for a quick launch was a potential concern. The GOP meltdown that has led to the possibility of giving an unhinged, lunatic with quick strike capabilities must have them rethinking the process.

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting. This system was no doubt setup during the Cold War when the need for a quick launch was a potential concern. The GOP meltdown that has led to the possibility of giving an unhinged, lunatic with quick strike capabilities must have them rethinking the process.

Nope....scared Canadians thought the same thing about Reagan. The world survived...and even got better.

Edited September 8, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest]

Nope....scared Canadians thought the same thing about Reagan. The world survived.

Interesting. Do Reagan and Trump seem similarly qualified to you? Did Reagan also ask "Why can't we use nukes if we have them?" during his security briefings?