Donald vs Hillary

[TimG]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They're expecting he'll use it to keep out immigrants, renegotiate trade deals, screw Iran and likewise settle America's scores. 

And when Trump and terminated all of America's trade deals he will discover that the world will respond in kind putting even more Americans out of work.

[TimG]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

That's true....some people get very fired up about illegals.    Legal immigrants are welcomed....illegals >  GET OUT ! 

The only reason illegals are in the US is because Americans want them there to provide cheap services.
If people did not vote with their wallets illegals would not be an issue.

Edited October 16, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, TimG said:

Trump has publicly stated he will ...

 

And candidate Obama publicly stated he would do things too that never happened.    That's why it is called "campaign rhetoric".

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

The only reason illegals are in the US is because Americans want them there to provide cheap services.
If people did not vote with their wallets illegals would not be an issue.

 

There would still be illegals in the U.S.    I don't think Canadian illegals work so cheap.

[Hal 9000]

22 minutes ago, TimG said:

Trump has publicly stated he will start a witch hunt into Clinton's handling of the emails with the objective of putting her in jail despite the fact that careless handling of classified material (as opposed deliberate release and/or sale) typically results in someone being fired and having their clearance revoked.

Trump has stated that he wants to change liability law so he can more effectively use his money to silence critics.

Trump wants to modify banking regulations in a way that allows his business to have better access to borrowed funds.

 

 

Assigning someone independent and free from corruption to investigate is not a witch hunt.  Hillary has done things illegal, that we actually know as fact.

The other 2 things are complete hysteria, probably came from Lawrence O'Donnell or somebody just as bad, perhaps Hayes or Lemon. 

[TimG]

14 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Assigning someone independent and free from corruption to investigate is not a witch hunt.  Hillary has done things illegal, that we actually know as fact.

The other 2 things are complete hysteria, probably came from Lawrence O'Donnell or somebody just as bad, perhaps Hayes or Lemon. 

So will Trump allow himself to be investigated for his use of Trump Foundation funds to buy off prosecutors investigating him for crimes?
It is a witch hunt when it is directed only at political opponents.
The that Trump presumes the outcome of such investigation would be jail time for Clinton is evidence of the political nature of these so called "independent" investigations.

I got them from statements that Trump has made. It is not hysteria but a rational analysis of the implications of the policies in question.

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by TimG

[Hal 9000]

Dude, everyone uses their charity for their own purposes, it's sort of expected.  The Clintons pay for their entire "organization" through the foundation, that's not the issue.  The Issue is how the Clinton foundation makes it's money, and it appears that unlike other similar organizations who sell guns or drugs, they are selling contracts, influence and policy to their clients.

Of course, maybe you believe that all these countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are so overcome with humanitarian feelings that they just can't help but to donate millions to the cause. 

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Dude, everyone uses their charity for their own purposes, it's sort of expected.  The Clintons pay for their entire "organization" through the foundation, that's not the issue.  The Issue is how the Clinton foundation makes it's money, and it appears that unlike other similar organizations who sell guns or drugs, they are selling contracts, influence and policy to their clients.

Of course, maybe you believe that all these countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are so overcome with humanitarian feelings that they just can't help but to donate millions to the cause. 

So you are complaining about what the Clinton's did but you have no issue with Trump's used of charity money for non-charitable purposes?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

[Hal 9000]

16 minutes ago, TimG said:

So you are complaining about what the Clinton's did but you have no issue with Trump's used of charity money for non-charitable purposes?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

I'll slow it down, the issue of using charity money for personal purposes is bad, yes, but all we know that that is part of the deal.  The Clintons do it and I'm sure Trump has done it, I'm pretty sure that nearly every charity spends at least some donor money inappropriately.  With that said, my concern is more about what the Clintons do to raise money (and from whom) for their organization.  

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I'll slow it down, the issue of using charity money for personal purposes is bad, yes, but all we know that that is part of the deal.  The Clintons do it and I'm sure Trump has done it, I'm pretty sure that nearly every charity spends at least some donor money inappropriately.  With that said, my concern is more about what the Clintons do to raise money (and from whom) for their organization.  

What the Clinton's appear to do stinks. That said, the Clinton charity is an audited organization that gets good marks from independent organizations that rate charities (i.e. it does good with majority of money it receives see https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680). The Trump Foundation keeps its books secret  does little good with the tax subsidized money it receives. 

The bigger question is how Trump would react were he suddenly given the power of the POTUS. Given his narcissism, his past abuse of his own charity and lack of any ethical foundation it is reasonable to assume that he would quickly make the Clintons look like boy scouts. 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, TimG said:

The bigger question is how Trump would react were he suddenly given the power of the POTUS. Given his narcissism and lack of any ethical foundation it is reasonable to assume that he would quickly make the Clinton's look like boy scouts. 

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement for Team Clinton.    Neither candidate meets the smell test in this regard, and neither should become POTUS if that is a qualifying criteria.

[Hal 9000]

10 minutes ago, TimG said:

What the Clinton's appear to do stinks. That said, the Clinton charity is an audited organization that gets good marks from independent organizations that rate charities (i.e. it does good with majority of money it receives see https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680). The Trump Foundation keeps its books secret  does little good with the tax subsidized money it receives. 

The bigger question is how Trump would react were he suddenly given the power of the POTUS. Given his narcissism, his past abuse of his own charity and lack of any ethical foundation it is reasonable to assume that he would quickly make the Clintons look like boy scouts. 

 

Good F'N Grief! 

How the fck do you think they get that money?  That should be what people are asking.

[TimG]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Hardly a ringing endorsement for Team Clinton.    Neither candidate meets the smell test in this regard, and neither should become POTUS if that is a qualifying criteria.

I agree. Almost any one of the other Republican contenders would have been a better choice. But Americans have to pick one of the two (unless there is a mass defection to a third party candidate). Given those options Clinton stinks but is the least offensive.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, TimG said:

I agree. Almost any one of the other Republican contenders would have been a better choice. But Americans have to pick one of the two (unless there is a mass defection to a third party candidate). Given those options Clinton stinks but is the least offensive.

 

Disagree.....millions of Americans won't even vote while others will choose to go third party, like me.

People are also free to vote for the stinky major party candidate of their choice.

[TimG]

14 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

How the fck do you think they get that money?  That should be what people are asking.

And they would be asking that question if a major contender other than Trump was on the ballot.

Edited October 16, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Disagree.....millions of Americans won't even vote while others will choose to go third party, like me.

I wish more Americans were like you.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Hillary is corrupt, how anyone can deny that is truly worrisome..

Maybe because you haven't provided any evidence of this alleged corruption. At least, beyond what we see from all politicians.

Trump seems thoroughly corrupt in every regard, from cheating on taxes to fraudulent companies to endemic lying on every conceivable issue.

[Argus]

52 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Good F'N Grief! 

How the fck do you think they get that money?  That should be what people are asking.

Well, according to PBS:

The Clintons leveraged public service, celebrity status, book-writing, consulting and a whirlwind of lucrative speeches that took them across the country and around the world on behalf of corporations, foundations, trade groups and even some foreign governments.

Bill Clinton blended private appearances and consulting with his work promoting the family’s global charity, the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2008, lost to Barack Obama, became his secretary of state for four years then joined her husband at the foundation and on the lecture circuit, earning $22 million by herself in three years.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-trump-clinton-are-wealthy-and-how-they-spend-money/

Here's another, Forbes Magazine

The money flowed in fast. Bill delivered the first of hundreds of high-paying speeches on February 5, 2001, less than three weeks after he left the presidency, talking to Morgan Stanley in New York for $125,000. The firm got a bargain. Bill eventually raised his average rate to roughly $225,000 per speech, in some cases charging $500,000, according to disclosure documents Hillary filed as a senator and cabinet member. In 2005, Bill even charged $125,000 for giving a video conference from New York to a group called HSM Italia. All told, he raked in about $100 million from speaking from 2001 to 2014. The former president also made a fortune writing books. In 2004, he published his memoir My Life, which became a No. 1 New York Times bestseller.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/10/13/how-the-clintons-made-more-than-230-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/#44b93c0d791e

 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

55 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Good F'N Grief! 

How the fck do you think they get that money?  That should be what people are asking.

Can you provide a cite? 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Dude, everyone uses their charity for their own purposes, it's sort of expected.  The Clintons pay for their entire "organization" through the foundation, that's not the issue.  The Issue is how the Clinton foundation makes it's money, and it appears that unlike other similar organizations who sell guns or drugs, they are selling contracts, influence and policy to their clients.

Facts not in evidence. And btw, the money that goes to the foundation does not go to the Clintons, it goes to help poor and sick people worldwide.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Assigning someone independent and free from corruption to investigate is not a witch hunt.  Hillary has done things illegal, that we actually know as fact.

We do? What has she done which we know to be illegal? And don't say emails since the FBI says otherwise and I suspect they're better at such decisions than you.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

And candidate Obama publicly stated he would do things too that never happened.    That's why it is called "campaign rhetoric".

There's a difference between making a promise you have no intention of keeping and making a promise which you are thwarted in fulfilling by opposition in congress.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's a difference between making a promise you have no intention of keeping and making a promise which you are thwarted in fulfilling by opposition in congress.

 

Obama's own party members voted against him.    'Gitmo is still open.  His healthcare promises rapidly fell apart.   He started new wars.   Obama made more promises to break than Trump could ever dream of:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=2

[Hal 9000]

27 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Can you provide a cite? 

WTF!  A cite?  A cite for what?

[Hal 9000]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, according to PBS:

The Clintons leveraged public service, celebrity status, book-writing, consulting and a whirlwind of lucrative speeches that took them across the country and around the world on behalf of corporations, foundations, trade groups and even some foreign governments.

Bill Clinton blended private appearances and consulting with his work promoting the family’s global charity, the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2008, lost to Barack Obama, became his secretary of state for four years then joined her husband at the foundation and on the lecture circuit, earning $22 million by herself in three years.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-trump-clinton-are-wealthy-and-how-they-spend-money/

Here's another, Forbes Magazine

The money flowed in fast. Bill delivered the first of hundreds of high-paying speeches on February 5, 2001, less than three weeks after he left the presidency, talking to Morgan Stanley in New York for $125,000. The firm got a bargain. Bill eventually raised his average rate to roughly $225,000 per speech, in some cases charging $500,000, according to disclosure documents Hillary filed as a senator and cabinet member. In 2005, Bill even charged $125,000 for giving a video conference from New York to a group called HSM Italia. All told, he raked in about $100 million from speaking from 2001 to 2014. The former president also made a fortune writing books. In 2004, he published his memoir My Life, which became a No. 1 New York Times bestseller.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/10/13/how-the-clintons-made-more-than-230-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/#44b93c0d791e

 

 

Well, that's not really what was asked.