|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 15 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2016 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that article last night. From what the Washington Post has dug up, the Trump Foundation is pure shady business. Of course Trump while whine about the NY attorney general, but that is his natural state when he is told he is breaking laws. Clearly Trump needs to take lessons from Clinton in how to run a scam foundation without getting caught. ◾Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. ◾Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. ◾Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. ◾Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. Sorry I should have been cleared. I was being utterly sarcastic. Some people here have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the Clinton Foundation and yet it is Trump's foundation that is being investigated. The irony is sweet.
Umm, the Clinton Foundation is under investigation -- by the feds, no less. That's far worse than being investigated by a state office.
|
On September 15 2016 00:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2016 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that article last night. From what the Washington Post has dug up, the Trump Foundation is pure shady business. Of course Trump while whine about the NY attorney general, but that is his natural state when he is told he is breaking laws. Clearly Trump needs to take lessons from Clinton in how to run a scam foundation without getting caught. ◾Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. ◾Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. ◾Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. ◾Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. Sorry I should have been cleared. I was being utterly sarcastic. Some people here have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the Clinton Foundation and yet it is Trump's foundation that is being investigated. The irony is sweet. Umm, the Clinton Foundation is under investigation -- by the feds, no less. That's far worse than being investigated by a state office.
Trump has already been investigated by the feds
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/?_r=0
The Department of Justice had brought suit in federal court in Brooklyn against Mr. Trump and his father, Fred C. Trump, charging them with violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the operation of 39 buildings.
Sure he settled so he didn't have to actually admit he was wrong, but your line of reasoning in this particular case doesn't really hold up.
|
On September 15 2016 00:42 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2016 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that article last night. From what the Washington Post has dug up, the Trump Foundation is pure shady business. Of course Trump while whine about the NY attorney general, but that is his natural state when he is told he is breaking laws. Clearly Trump needs to take lessons from Clinton in how to run a scam foundation without getting caught. ◾Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. ◾Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. ◾Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. ◾Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. Sorry I should have been cleared. I was being utterly sarcastic. Some people here have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the Clinton Foundation and yet it is Trump's foundation that is being investigated. The irony is sweet. Umm, the Clinton Foundation is under investigation -- by the feds, no less. That's far worse than being investigated by a state office. Trump has already been investigated by the feds http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/?_r=0Show nested quote +The Department of Justice had brought suit in federal court in Brooklyn against Mr. Trump and his father, Fred C. Trump, charging them with violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the operation of 39 buildings.
Sure he settled so he didn't have to actually admit he was wrong, but your line of reasoning in this particular case doesn't really hold up.
Try harder to follow the conversation. We're talking about their respective charities.
|
On September 15 2016 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 00:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On September 15 2016 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2016 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that article last night. From what the Washington Post has dug up, the Trump Foundation is pure shady business. Of course Trump while whine about the NY attorney general, but that is his natural state when he is told he is breaking laws. Clearly Trump needs to take lessons from Clinton in how to run a scam foundation without getting caught. ◾Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. ◾Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. ◾Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. ◾Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. Sorry I should have been cleared. I was being utterly sarcastic. Some people here have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the Clinton Foundation and yet it is Trump's foundation that is being investigated. The irony is sweet. Umm, the Clinton Foundation is under investigation -- by the feds, no less. That's far worse than being investigated by a state office. Trump has already been investigated by the feds http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-donald-trump/?_r=0The Department of Justice had brought suit in federal court in Brooklyn against Mr. Trump and his father, Fred C. Trump, charging them with violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the operation of 39 buildings.
Sure he settled so he didn't have to actually admit he was wrong, but your line of reasoning in this particular case doesn't really hold up. Try harder to follow the conversation. We're talking about their respective charities.
Point taken, although im not necessarily convinced its worse than a state office investigation. Im not familiar with the specifics, but i would imagine its a matter of which laws were violated, not the extent to which they were violated that is the main cause of the federal involvement. I could be wrong though.
|
The New York AG is not just a "state office" in the same way that the Delaware Chancery is not just a "state court." Nevertheless, I'm not interested in comparing the severity of state v. federal investigations. Both candidates and their associated organizations are being investigated. That's plain enough 
|
On September 15 2016 00:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2016 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that article last night. From what the Washington Post has dug up, the Trump Foundation is pure shady business. Of course Trump while whine about the NY attorney general, but that is his natural state when he is told he is breaking laws. Clearly Trump needs to take lessons from Clinton in how to run a scam foundation without getting caught. ◾Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. ◾Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. ◾Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. ◾Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. Sorry I should have been cleared. I was being utterly sarcastic. Some people here have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the Clinton Foundation and yet it is Trump's foundation that is being investigated. The irony is sweet. Umm, the Clinton Foundation is under investigation -- by the feds, no less. That's far worse than being investigated by a state office.
Ah ok, missed that one. Fair enough. Both are under investigation then
|
On September 15 2016 00:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:50 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2016 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 23:45 Plansix wrote:
I saw that article last night. From what the Washington Post has dug up, the Trump Foundation is pure shady business. Of course Trump while whine about the NY attorney general, but that is his natural state when he is told he is breaking laws. Clearly Trump needs to take lessons from Clinton in how to run a scam foundation without getting caught. ◾Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops. ◾Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects. ◾Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment. ◾Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans. Sorry I should have been cleared. I was being utterly sarcastic. Some people here have repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the Clinton Foundation and yet it is Trump's foundation that is being investigated. The irony is sweet. Umm, the Clinton Foundation is under investigation -- by the feds, no less. That's far worse than being investigated by a state office.
Just like she was "under investigation" while the republicans dragged out their benghazi thing when there was nothing there? Just like she was "under investigation" when the republicans created a bunch of email drama over nothing? I don't think sane people give any more shits about the clintons being "under investigation" anymore, after decades of smear campaigning and false investigations and fabrications from the republican party.
|
About the deplorables and Trump overestimating his support, let's do some simple math first.
Trump consistently polls at ~40% among likely voters in 3 and 4-way polls.Here's some recent ones: WaPo(41%), Breitbart(40%), Reuters(38%). Note that he tends to be 2-3% lower among registered voters, and 5-7% lower among the general population.
Only 25% of likely Trump voters say their vote is pro-Trump rather than anti-Clinton or neither. That amounts to 10% of total likely voters (not just Trump's).
Half of the actual pro-Trump crowd is 5% of total likely voters (closer to 4% for the general population). And are half of Trump's supporters unusually bigoted compared to the mean? It does appear so.
On July 30th and August 6th, YouGov included in its weekly poll four questions about “racial resentment”, which seek to measure attitudes regarding race relations. At first glance, Mrs Clinton’s 50% estimate looks impressively accurate: 58% of respondents who said they backed Mr Trump resided in the poll’s highest quartile for combined racial-resentment scores. And at a lower threshold of offensiveness—merely distasteful rather than outright deplorable, say—91% of Mr Trump’s voters scored above the national average.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8
Nearly half of Trump's supporters described African Americans as more "violent" than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more "criminal" than whites, while 40 percent described them as more "lazy" than whites.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW
Now, data from the recently released 2016 American National Election Studies (ANES) adds yet more evidence. These data show that ethnocentrism is strongly related to support for Trump — more so than for any other Republican candidate. Trump support stands apart in how much it derives from attitudes about non-white minority groups. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/28/what-differentiates-trump-supporters-from-other-republicans-ethnocentrism/
GOP primary voters who said that most Muslims support ISIS are 35 points more likely to support Trump than Republicans who think “very few” adherents of Islam support the terrorist organization. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/08/how-hostile-are-trump-supporters-toward-muslims-this-new-poll-will-tell-you/
By an 80/9 spread, Trump voters support his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States. In fact 31% would support a ban on homosexuals entering the United States as well, something no more than 17% of anyone else's voters think is a good idea . There's also 62/23 support among Trump voters for creating a national database of Muslims and 40/36 support for shutting down all the mosques in the United States, something no one else's voters back. Only 44% of Trump voters think the practice of Islam should even be legal at all in the United States, to 33% who think it should be illegal. To put all the views toward Muslims in context though, 32% of Trump voters continue to believe the policy of Japanese internment during World War II was a good one, compared to only 33% who oppose it and 35% who have no opinion one way or another
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf
Not long ago I remember Americans having a huge fucking problem with Russia banning "gay propaganda", lots of exhibited superiority about it. Now 2-3 years later I hear a bunch of you suggesting that only a crazy SJW could possibly think a lot of Trump supporters are bigoted for wanting to ban people of certain sexualities or religions from entering the country.
I do think it was a political mistake for Clinton to turn to voters instead of sticking with Trump himself, but give me a break with the 'PC gone mad' routine when it comes to judging the alt-right. If you confuse or conflate this kind of criticism with some Jezebel/HuffPo type screaming 'cultural appropriation' at every corner, the problem lies with you.
What I've posted is only a tiny speck of the massive amount of data unanimously showing a strong correlation between hostility/prejudice towards minorities and support of Trump. And not just relative to Clinton, but relative to every other Republican primary candidate's supporters as well.
|
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton.
|
On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton.
Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned?
|
On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned?
We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter.
|
On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned?
I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump.
Edit: apparently Trump is not releasing his medial records today after all.
|
On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump.
I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here.
As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers.
|
More evidence that Russia is feeling more free to achieve anti-US ends with hacking leaks?
USA gymnastics superstar Simone Biles came under the spotlight on Tuesday after Russian hackers circulated confidential medical records from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) database that showed her use of Methylphenidate, a stimulant for treatment of ADHD.
Wonder if a presidential nominee should ask Russia to do another leak? If Obama enabled Russia with his red line mistake, is Trump not enabling Russia here?
|
On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers.
Hillary released her tax returns, as well as an actual doctor's evaluation, while being under much stricter scrutiny than trump. The ability of trump supporters to hide from reality is honestly astounding, it really is. By your same logic, either Hilary will flop over dead soon, or she won't, no reason discussing it at all, there's nothing you can do (although I guess 2nd amendment trump supporters can, right?) There's no use discussing Hillary's emails, it's over with and either they will cause the end of the world, or they won't, nothing you can do about it.
|
On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter.
Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week.
|
On September 15 2016 01:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter. Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week.
Has nobody bothered to tell him that Dr.Oz isn't a real doctor? Also as the hardcore trump supporter you are, I don't think you want to bring up the word "birthism." It's just not in your best interests, given trump never took back his birther comments about Obama. Also apparently he's not revealing his physical results, or so I've heard.
|
On September 15 2016 01:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter. Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week.
He changed his mind, actually
|
On September 15 2016 01:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:16 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? I have not seen his taxes and those matter to me. I want to know who he is in business with. And my comment was referencing the contrast of quality of "dirt" discovered about Clinton over a protracted 3 year investigation involving all of congress when compared to the meager efforts of the press and the shit they have found out about Trump. I understand that you and many others want to see Trump's taxes, but Trump is already under intense media scrutiny on this point. He's either going to release his taxes or he won't. There's nothing else to be done here. As for the "quality of dirt," could it possibly be that Trump is less dirty overall than the Clintons? I certainly get that the press doesn't have the subpoena powers of congress and the feds, but I find it hard to believe that the press could possibly do any more than it already has to dig up dirt on Trump or otherwise bury him using its media powers.
Fat chance. The man is a full scale con artist who created a business for the sole purpose offering fake education people. And that business instructed employees to have single parents charge the classes to credit cards if they couldn't' afford them. They targeted single parents and were told to "focus on their children" to sell the idea that Trumps classes would provide increased income. And that is just one of the investigations against him.
The man straight up doesn't pay people and laughs about it. He gloated that his tower has the highest in the city after 9/11. And also lied about helping dig out survivors. And collected tax payer funds to help small business after 9/11. The claimed he donated those funds or used them to help people. Not one has been able to find evidence he ever did that.
The media doesn't have enough reporters to cover the election and dig all of Trumps lies, which are mostly proving that Trump didn't do what he claimed he did.
So yeah, there is no way that the Clinton's are dirtier than Trump. Even with their flaws, I don't think they would create a fake school to defraud people out of money for fake classes. Trump did and refuses to apologize for it.
On September 15 2016 01:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter. Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week.
People just want to know what Visa she used, since Trump plans to eliminate a lot of Visas and other ways to immigrate. And as others have said, he dodged releasing his medical records.
|
On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 01:27 oBlade wrote:On September 15 2016 01:10 hunts wrote:On September 15 2016 01:07 xDaunt wrote:On September 15 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:
You have to wonder how much shady business would be turned up if the full weight of congress was turned on Trump, rather than just the Washington Post’s efforts. I bet the turnaround would be much faster than the death march congress has been on with Clinton. Putting aside the obvious due process, privacy, and other constitutional concerns of having the government lay into Trump just for shits and giggles, you've made statements a few times now suggesting that you don't think that Trump is under enough scrutiny. This just seems insane to me. The entire media and establishment apparatus is out to get him. What stone has been left unturned? We still haven't seen his tax records, or proof that he's actually being audited (which was his excuse for not showing them) or actual health records, or his wives citizenship papers for that matter. Your concerns start out apparently genuine until you got to Melania-birtherism. He's going on the Dr. Oz show to reveal his full physical results this week. Has nobody bothered to tell him that Dr.Oz isn't a real doctor?
Dr. Oz and Harold Bornstein are both real, professional, medical doctors. You haven't even seen what he's going to reveal and it's not enough. Tell us beforehand what would satisfy you so you can't move the goalposts.
On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:
Also as the hardcore trump supporter you are, I don't think you want to bring up the word "birther." It's just not in your best interests, given trump never took back his birther comments about Obama.
He's never going to take it "back" because he believes he won by getting him to release something. That's why he hasn't brought it up for four years, Obama released his birth certificate so that was it. This is not about Trump, it's about not being a hypocrite.
On September 15 2016 01:28 hunts wrote:
Also apparently he's not revealing his physical results, or so I've heard.
I've heard he's only worth $5 which is why he won't release his tax returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2016/02/kalkan_fig2.png)
![[image loading]](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2015/12/tesler_trumpmuslim3.png&w=1484)
