I was right: President Elect Trump

[Opti]

Sept 26, 2016 19:54:18 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 26, 2016 19:45:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

No they don't.  It's not even close.  

Yes they do... and yes it is.

with Trump being just a SMIDGEON less slimy than Hillary for one simple fact. He's never been an elected official, so all of his sliminess has been on his own personal behalf. Hillary has been a "public servant" for decades now... all of her slime is on our behalf AND with our (well... "the majority", anyway) blessing.

So buying elected officials with Trump foundation money isn't so bad simply because he's not an elected official?

[Deleted]

Sept 26, 2016 20:11:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 26, 2016 19:54:18 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes they do... and yes it is.

with Trump being just a SMIDGEON less slimy than Hillary for one simple fact. He's never been an elected official, so all of his sliminess has been on his own personal behalf. Hillary has been a "public servant" for decades now... all of her slime is on our behalf AND with our (well... "the majority", anyway) blessing.

So buying elected officials with Trump foundation money isn't so bad simply because he's not an elected official?

Not even remotely what I said... (does that surprise me? Nope.)

Buying politicians is bad no matter WHO does it. But it's WORSE when it's done on behalf of US. Trump has never done it on our behalf.

[Pants]

Sept 26, 2016 8:00:43 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

What I'm looking forward to most now is Trump being thrown out of the debate tonight. 

I've been thinking about it, and the only way Hillary Clinton makes it through 90 minutes is she doesn't.

It's a HUGE risk, but they have to protect Hillary- and I think they're not only underestimating the backlash-- I don't think they see it. I think they honestly believe that throwing Trump out tonight will destroy his chances and change the momentum for Hillary Clinton. They'll say "rules are rules" and "as President" and "temperament" and "blah, blah, blah"-- they have no idea they're about to not only suffer a massive defeat already-- but I believe there will be a massive shift of "likely voters" into the Trump column nation-wide after tonight's almost inevitable stunt. 

I mean what else can they do?

90 minutes.

No coughing breaks.

No "pneumonia" induced "fainting spell" breaks.

It'll go 20 minutes (if they have that long) and they will find a pretext for throwing Trump out.

I really loved it when Trump got thrown out of the debate. The backlash is going to be incredible. Hillary was obviously worn out after about 15 minutes. Honestly I'm surprised they let it go that long. 

[Opti]

Sept 26, 2016 20:27:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 26, 2016 20:11:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

So buying elected officials with Trump foundation money isn't so bad simply because he's not an elected official?

Not even remotely what I said... (does that surprise me? Nope.)

Buying politicians is bad no matter WHO does it. But it's WORSE when it's done on behalf of US. Trump has never done it on our behalf.

My reply to this got destroyed last night and I'm not sure if I care to reconstruct it. I was not trying to say what you said, but give you an example which has no direct Hillary equivalent. I do not understand your "on behalf of US" comment. Politicians have both public duties and private lives. Not everything they do is about or for the electorate.

My best guess is on behalf of us means she is acting as our proxies so any missteps reflect on us as well or that as a public service proxy holder any action is considered multiplied.

[Deleted]

Sept 27, 2016 9:37:19 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 26, 2016 20:27:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Not even remotely what I said... (does that surprise me? Nope.)

Buying politicians is bad no matter WHO does it. But it's WORSE when it's done on behalf of US. Trump has never done it on our behalf.

My reply to this got destroyed last night and I'm not sure if I care to reconstruct it. I was not trying to say what you said, but give you an example which has no direct Hillary equivalent. I do not understand your "on behalf of US" comment. Politicians have both public duties and private lives. Not everything they do is about or for the electorate.

My best guess is on behalf of us means she is acting as our proxies so any missteps reflect on us as well or that as a public service proxy holder any action is considered multiplied.

I don't care about a public official's private life (see my comments about not caring that Bill failed at his job of "Perfect Husband").

What I do care about is when things they do affect me or represent me.

When you let yourself get bribed while in office, then you were bribed on my behalf. When you bribe someone in the performance of your duties as an elected official then it's the same to me as if I bribed someone. Because you are MY representative.

Think of it like this. If I have a broken piece of electronics that is mine, that I own outright... I might pound the crap out of it in frustration. If, however, I DON'T own it... I'm only borrowing it or keeping an eye on it... I wouldn't treat it the same way. Personal actions are one thing, actions on behalf of others are totally different.

[happyhoix]

Sept 27, 2016 21:55:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 27, 2016 9:37:19 GMT -5 Opti said:

My reply to this got destroyed last night and I'm not sure if I care to reconstruct it. I was not trying to say what you said, but give you an example which has no direct Hillary equivalent. I do not understand your "on behalf of US" comment. Politicians have both public duties and private lives. Not everything they do is about or for the electorate.

My best guess is on behalf of us means she is acting as our proxies so any missteps reflect on us as well or that as a public service proxy holder any action is considered multiplied.

I don't care about a public official's private life (see my comments about not caring that Bill failed at his job of "Perfect Husband").

What I do care about is when things they do affect me or represent me.

When you let yourself get bribed while in office, then you were bribed on my behalf. When you bribe someone in the performance of your duties as an elected official then it's the same to me as if I bribed someone. Because you are MY representative.

Think of it like this. If I have a broken piece of electronics that is mine, that I own outright... I might pound the crap out of it in frustration. If, however, I DON'T own it... I'm only borrowing it or keeping an eye on it... I wouldn't treat it the same way. Personal actions are one thing, actions on behalf of others are totally different.

But for people who have not held public office before, like Trump, you have to extrapolate how they conducted their private business to how they might behave in public office.

Trump is arrogant, myopic, corrupt, and thinks anything that benefits him or his company is fair game, no matter how it impacts his vendors/customers or employees, or whether it's legal. He uses a fleet of lawyers to bully and intimidate others to get his way. He admits he doesn't pay federal income tax and that he gleefully reaped profits from other people's disasters during the housing crisis. He uses a charity (to which he doesn't direct any of his own money) to pay for personal property, bribe government officials and pay off legal judgments against his company. None of this would give any sensible person confidence that he would suddenly morph into a diligent and public minded elected official. Instead, he will be the personification of the fox raiding the henhouse. Expect him to appoint family and people who can benefit his business to his cabinet. Expect him to fail to provide any tax relief for the middle class but instead go with his 'trickle down' theories that benefit the wealthy (and that failed the last time we tried them). Expect him not to pursue any immigration reform because that would negatively impact his casinos and resorts. Expect everything he will do in office will benefit him or his empire. How is that slime preferable to someone who has spent her life in public service, attempting to improve things for the middle class - even if you don't think she's been very successful at it, or if you don't agree with her view of what good policy is,  that's still better than the graft, greed and corruption that Trump will usher into the White House.

 

[Opti]

Here's an ad discussing Trump University and its tactics to get money. I think the statement that they were to target single women with hungry kids is pretty powerful. (Just watch the first 2:46 minutes, not sure what else is on there.)

[dezailoooooo]

Sept 28, 2016 8:01:01 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 27, 2016 21:55:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I don't care about a public official's private life (see my comments about not caring that Bill failed at his job of "Perfect Husband").

What I do care about is when things they do affect me or represent me.

When you let yourself get bribed while in office, then you were bribed on my behalf. When you bribe someone in the performance of your duties as an elected official then it's the same to me as if I bribed someone. Because you are MY representative.

Think of it like this. If I have a broken piece of electronics that is mine, that I own outright... I might pound the crap out of it in frustration. If, however, I DON'T own it... I'm only borrowing it or keeping an eye on it... I wouldn't treat it the same way. Personal actions are one thing, actions on behalf of others are totally different.

But for people who have not held public office before, like Trump, you have to extrapolate how they conducted their private business to how they might behave in public office.

Trump is arrogant, myopic, corrupt, and thinks anything that benefits him or his company is fair game, no matter how it impacts his vendors/customers or employees, or whether it's legal. He uses a fleet of lawyers to bully and intimidate others to get his way. He admits he doesn't pay federal income tax and that he gleefully reaped profits from other people's disasters during the housing crisis. He uses a charity (to which he doesn't direct any of his own money) to pay for personal property, bribe government officials and pay off legal judgments against his company. None of this would give any sensible person confidence that he would suddenly morph into a diligent and public minded elected official. Instead, he will be the personification of the fox raiding the henhouse. Expect him to appoint family and people who can benefit his business to his cabinet. Expect him to fail to provide any tax relief for the middle class but instead go with his 'trickle down' theories that benefit the wealthy (and that failed the last time we tried them). Expect him not to pursue any immigration reform because that would negatively impact his casinos and resorts. Expect everything he will do in office will benefit him or his empire. How is that slime preferable to someone who has spent her life in public service, attempting to improve things for the middle class - even if you don't think she's been very successful at it, or if you don't agree with her view of what good policy is,  that's still better than the graft, greed and corruption that Trump will usher into the White House.

 

[Opti]

Sept 26, 2016 20:27:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 26, 2016 20:11:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

So buying elected officials with Trump foundation money isn't so bad simply because he's not an elected official?

Not even remotely what I said... (does that surprise me? Nope.)

Buying politicians is bad no matter WHO does it. But it's WORSE when it's done on behalf of US. Trump has never done it on our behalf.

Do you have any proof that Hillary bought politicians? Something substantial, not that connect the dots hit piece of film.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2016 11:04:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 26, 2016 20:27:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Not even remotely what I said... (does that surprise me? Nope.)

Buying politicians is bad no matter WHO does it. But it's WORSE when it's done on behalf of US. Trump has never done it on our behalf.

Do you have any proof that Hillary bought politicians? Something substantial, not that connect the dots hit piece of film.

Not that I could put my finger on at the moment... but I could probably find the proof in 20 minutes or less with Google's help.

But... are prosecutors "politicians"? They are elected in some places. If you will accept that prosecutors are politicians then I don't even have to go as far as Google. She's freely and openly admitted to illegal acts, or done them while being recorded, numerous times... yet she's never been prosecuted for any of them. There's no such thing as coincidence in politics.

[Opti]

Sept 28, 2016 21:10:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 28, 2016 11:04:22 GMT -5 Opti said:

Do you have any proof that Hillary bought politicians? Something substantial, not that connect the dots hit piece of film.

Not that I could put my finger on at the moment... but I could probably find the proof in 20 minutes or less with Google's help.

But... are prosecutors "politicians"? They are elected in some places. If you will accept that prosecutors are politicians then I don't even have to go as far as Google. She's freely and openly admitted to illegal acts, or done them while being recorded, numerous times... yet she's never been prosecuted for any of them. There's no such thing as coincidence in politics.

It seems you leapt OT. Did Hillary ever bribe a politician while serving in public office? Y or N?

Did Hillary ever accept a bribe while serving in public office? Y or N?

Can you find something with real proof not conjecture? If so, please post.

I can wait until you find the time to look. No hurry.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2016 21:19:32 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 28, 2016 21:10:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Not that I could put my finger on at the moment... but I could probably find the proof in 20 minutes or less with Google's help.

But... are prosecutors "politicians"? They are elected in some places. If you will accept that prosecutors are politicians then I don't even have to go as far as Google. She's freely and openly admitted to illegal acts, or done them while being recorded, numerous times... yet she's never been prosecuted for any of them. There's no such thing as coincidence in politics.

It seems you leapt OT. Did Hillary ever bribe a politician while serving in public office? Y or N?

Did Hillary ever accept a bribe while serving in public office? Y or N?

Can you find something with real proof not conjecture? If so, please post.

I can wait until you find the time to look. No hurry.

I'm not going to waste the 20 minutes it would take to find it. I know it's there because I have seen it (the reports about it). I wouldn't say it if it weren't true.

Look if you like. If you don't want to look that's fine too. My oven just "dinged" my next 20 minutes will be spent eating.

[Opti]

Sept 28, 2016 22:02:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 28, 2016 21:19:32 GMT -5 Opti said:

It seems you leapt OT. Did Hillary ever bribe a politician while serving in public office? Y or N?

Did Hillary ever accept a bribe while serving in public office? Y or N?

Can you find something with real proof not conjecture? If so, please post.

I can wait until you find the time to look. No hurry.

I'm not going to waste the 20 minutes it would take to find it. I know it's there because I have seen it (the reports about it). I wouldn't say it if it weren't true.

Look if you like. If you don't want to look that's fine too. My oven just "dinged" my next 20 minutes will be spent eating.

I'm fairly certain its not there because even if Sanders might not have used that info, Trump certainly would. Instead he chooses lies and innuendos. I'm guessing what you saw is part of the smear campaign not actual proof.

[steff]

Newsweek cover coming out tomorrow has a YUGE story about Trump doing business in Cuba during the embargo/block/don't go to Cuba rules.  which is, shocker I know, ILLEGAL.  

on another note, anyone interested should find & watch Joe Biden's speech from today.  Pretty good.  

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I'm not going to waste the 20 minutes it would take to find it. I know it's there because I have seen it (the reports about it). I wouldn't say it if it weren't true.



Look if you like. If you don't want to look that's fine too. My oven just "dinged" my next 20 minutes will be spent eating.

Well some of us don't post conjectures. If it's your opinion then OK. I'm tired of fact checking some of the posts here. It's a waste of my time. 

[steff]

Oh and Gary Johnson couldn't name one single world leader he admired tonight in the Libertarian town hall.  Or one single world leader in general.  

Stuff like this is why I bother watching what the other candidates are doing & saying.   I did enjoy, in a for shits & giggles kinda way, his statement last week that the way to combat climate change was to inhabit other planets.  He doesn't seem to just have Aleppo moments, he IS an Aleppo moment on a constant loop. 

#ImWithHer

[steff]

Anyone talking about Trump's speech from this afternoon yet?   You know, the one where he asked people in the crowd who weren't "Christian Conservatives" to raise their hands and then asked the rest of the crowd is they should "keep them" or not?  

That alone should make people fucking shake in their shoes over what kind of person he is. 

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2016 22:08:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 28, 2016 22:02:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'm not going to waste the 20 minutes it would take to find it. I know it's there because I have seen it (the reports about it). I wouldn't say it if it weren't true.

Look if you like. If you don't want to look that's fine too. My oven just "dinged" my next 20 minutes will be spent eating.

I'm fairly certain its not there because even if Sanders might not have used that info, Trump certainly would. Instead he chooses lies and innuendos. I'm guessing what you saw is part of the smear campaign not actual proof.

You would be guessing incorrectly (I do know the difference between articles/reports and ads, believe it or not)... but keep guessing if you like. No skin off my nose.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2016 22:10:35 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

I'm not going to waste the 20 minutes it would take to find it. I know it's there because I have seen it (the reports about it). I wouldn't say it if it weren't true.



Look if you like. If you don't want to look that's fine too. My oven just "dinged" my next 20 minutes will be spent eating.

Well some of us don't post conjectures. If it's your opinion then OK. I'm tired of fact checking some of the posts here. It's a waste of my time. 

I don't post conjectures without clearly saying that it is one.

This subject is not conjecture. I just don't care if a Hillary supporter believes me or not. They don't believe their own eyes and ears... why should they believe my words on a message board?

[billisonboard]

Sept 29, 2016 5:59:19 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Sept 28, 2016 22:14:06 GMT -5 steff said:

Oh and Gary Johnson couldn't name one single world leader he admired tonight in the Libertarian town hall.  Or one single world leader in general.  

Stuff like this is why I bother watching what the other candidates are doing & saying.   I did enjoy, in a for shits & giggles kinda way, his statement last week that the way to combat climate change was to inhabit other planets.  He doesn't seem to just have Aleppo moments, he IS an Aleppo moment on a constant loop. 

#ImWithHer

Gary Johnson has been very disappointing to me, and this stuff is why. I heard his climate change leap to other planets the other day and was stunned. (I expect that sort of blather from a Trump or a Palin.... not a policy maker)  I know something of William Weld, and he is an upright candidate with some real cred, imo.  Maybe that ticket should have been reversed.

Likewise though, I've now seen enough of Jill Stein to make me think thanks, but no thanks.  I do like some of her environmental and FP positions.  Much of the rest of her platform however I just don't agree with.

Given the stakes in this election with the two big party candidates, I am going to weigh in where it counts.

I'm coming to that same thought. I had offered the idea that people should say they were supporting Johnson if surveyed to get him into debates. I just got a call last night and didn't name him because of the things mentioned here.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Sept 29, 2016 5:59:19 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Sept 28, 2016 22:14:06 GMT -5 steff said:

Oh and Gary Johnson couldn't name one single world leader he admired tonight in the Libertarian town hall.  Or one single world leader in general.  

Stuff like this is why I bother watching what the other candidates are doing & saying.   I did enjoy, in a for shits & giggles kinda way, his statement last week that the way to combat climate change was to inhabit other planets.  He doesn't seem to just have Aleppo moments, he IS an Aleppo moment on a constant loop. 

#ImWithHer

Gary Johnson has been very disappointing to me, and this stuff is why. I heard his climate change leap to other planets the other day and was stunned. (I expect that sort of blather from a Trump or a Palin.... not a policy maker)  I know something of William Weld, and he is an upright candidate with some real cred, imo.  Maybe that ticket should have been reversed.

Likewise though, I've now seen enough of Jill Stein to make me think thanks, but no thanks.  I do like some of her environmental and FP positions.  Much of the rest of her platform however I just don't agree with.

Given the stakes in this election with the two big party candidates, I am going to weigh in where it counts.

yeah, the vaccination thing with Jill Stein had me going "nope, not an option for me now"

[Opti]

Sept 28, 2016 23:38:27 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 28, 2016 22:08:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm fairly certain its not there because even if Sanders might not have used that info, Trump certainly would. Instead he chooses lies and innuendos. I'm guessing what you saw is part of the smear campaign not actual proof.

You would be guessing incorrectly (I do know the difference between articles/reports and ads, believe it or not)... but keep guessing if you like. No skin off my nose.

The smear campaign relies on articles and reports in the RW media and blogosphere. I am not sure why you jumped to the conclusion I thought your views came from ads. Yesterday a number of internet articles incorrectly reported Muchado as a porn star. Being in an article does not make it true, having evidence of it being true is IMO the only way to confirm it is true or not. Today there its likely any number of porn sites are listing her name is someone they have videos on. But they are click bait operations much like the ones for products who take your search terms and use them to present you with the website. They are internet scammers and should be avoided.

Apparently Breitbart and the RW internet sphere have another "scandal" today. Except there's no evidence of actual wrong-doing. Just a bunch of interconnections that will convince a conspiracy theory reader that there is something there, when its just BS.

[Pants]

Sept 29, 2016 8:17:30 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

On the other hand, the more I look at Hillary, the less she looks like the Wicked Witch of Bengazi.....

A few other "facts" that I am starting to doubt as well:

That she killed Vince Foster.
That she tanked Whitewater.
That she is a bulldog d*ke.
That she regularly swore at, belittled, and otherwise demeans her security detail.
That she is a far left wing communist sympathizer.
That she died of Parkinson's disease or vascular dementia last week.

I'm sure there are others.  I just can't keep track of all of the "facts".

Speaking of communism - does this week's Newsweek Trump/Castro stuff do anything to hurt him? 

[happyhoix]

Sept 28, 2016 22:08:55 GMT -5 steff said:

Newsweek cover coming out tomorrow has a YUGE story about Trump doing business in Cuba during the embargo/block/don't go to Cuba rules.  which is, shocker I know, ILLEGAL.  

on another note, anyone interested should find & watch Joe Biden's speech from today.  Pretty good.  

Here is the link to that.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trumps-castro-connection-how-trumps-company-violated-the-us-embargo-against-cuba/ar-BBwMksk?li=BBnb7Kz

So Trump illegally spends money in Cuba trying to launch a deal, hides this as a 'charitable donation' because any deals with Cuba at this time without express permission from the US government are highly illegal, and then, months later, when trying to pander to a room full of Cuban exiles, lies his ass off about it.

How did someone so willing to go against American interests and commit illegal acts in order to earn a few more bucks - and then lie about it to a room full of people - ever become the candidate of a major party for the highest American office?

This is why his admiration for Putin alarms me so much. He has significant business deals going on in Russia. He won't fuck that up by being tough on Putin, even if that's what we need to do, because Trump is only ever interested in what profits him personally.

[Opti]

So if you are on the web now you can see headlines of FBI Director receives millions with the implication this was all the Clinton Foundation's doing. It is actually though money Lockheed Martin paid him as an employee before he returned to the public sector.

So to believe even part of this payoff nonsense, you have to believe somehow(not described anywhere) that the Clinton Foundation's relationship with Lockheed Martin was paying this guy millions(10/2005 to 6/2010)  simply because they knew somewhere down the road he'd be appointed FBI director (June 2013) and investigate Hillary Clinton. There's some weirdness about homes and mortgages too, which I don't know why it would be important even if true. One lawyer brother supposedly lending money to another lawyer brother. OMG, it must really be  payoff!!!!!

truthuncensored.net/fbi-director-received-millions-from-clinton-foundation-his-brothers-law-firm-does-clintons-taxes/

www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2016/09/11/breitbarts-ridiculous-comey-conspiracy-theory/

Breitbart.com has “exposed” FBI Director James Comey’s ties to the Clinton Foundation, proving…well, something. They don’t even try to make an argument for an actual conflict of interest, believing, I’m sure, that merely pointing out any connection will be enough to get their audience salivating.

[happyhoix]

Sept 29, 2016 8:25:15 GMT -5 Pants said:

Sept 29, 2016 8:17:30 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

On the other hand, the more I look at Hillary, the less she looks like the Wicked Witch of Bengazi.....

A few other "facts" that I am starting to doubt as well:

That she killed Vince Foster.
That she tanked Whitewater.
That she is a bulldog d*ke.
That she regularly swore at, belittled, and otherwise demeans her security detail.
That she is a far left wing communist sympathizer.
That she died of Parkinson's disease or vascular dementia last week.

I'm sure there are others.  I just can't keep track of all of the "facts".

Speaking of communism - does this week's Newsweek Trump/Castro stuff do anything to hurt him? 

Nothing will hurt him with his die hard supporters, but hopefully, the fact that he is so very friendly to regimes that have historically been our enemies in order to grub a little more money will matter to the undecided.

[Opti]

Sept 29, 2016 8:17:30 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

On the other hand, the more I look at Hillary, the less she looks like the Wicked Witch of Bengazi.....

A few other "facts" that I am starting to doubt as well:

That she killed Vince Foster.
That she tanked Whitewater.
That she is a bulldog d*ke.
That she regularly swore at, belittled, and otherwise demeans her security detail.
That she is a far left wing communist sympathizer.
That she died of Parkinson's disease or vascular dementia last week.

I'm sure there are others.  I just can't keep track of all of the "facts".

Starting to doubt?

[Opti]

Sept 29, 2016 8:26:17 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 28, 2016 22:08:55 GMT -5 steff said:

Newsweek cover coming out tomorrow has a YUGE story about Trump doing business in Cuba during the embargo/block/don't go to Cuba rules.  which is, shocker I know, ILLEGAL.  

on another note, anyone interested should find & watch Joe Biden's speech from today.  Pretty good.  

Here is the link to that.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trumps-castro-connection-how-trumps-company-violated-the-us-embargo-against-cuba/ar-BBwMksk?li=BBnb7Kz

So Trump illegally spends money in Cuba trying to launch a deal, hides this as a 'charitable donation' because any deals with Cuba at this time without express permission from the US government are highly illegal, and then, months later, when trying to pander to a room full of Cuban exiles, lies his ass off about it.

How did someone so willing to go against American interests and commit illegal acts in order to earn a few more bucks - and then lie about it to a room full of people - ever become the candidate of a major party for the highest American office?

This is why his admiration for Putin alarms me so much. He has significant business deals going on in Russia. He won't fuck that up by being tough on Putin, even if that's what we need to do, because Trump is only ever interested in what profits him personally.

Well you know the answer to that. He was a private citizen then, so there is no reason to assume he would do that once he was elected to public office.

I need a sarcasm font for the rest of this election.

[Pants]

Sept 29, 2016 8:28:07 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 29, 2016 8:25:15 GMT -5 Pants said:

Speaking of communism - does this week's Newsweek Trump/Castro stuff do anything to hurt him? 

Nothing will hurt him with his die hard supporters, but hopefully, the fact that he is so very friendly to regimes that have historically been our enemies in order to grub a little more money will matter to the undecided.

I mean look, I'm not a Castro fan, but the embargo went on way too long. I don't care much that companies were trying to do business there before the embargo ended, actually. 

I'm torn on whether this will matter to conservatives though, to whom "communism" is the ultimate dirty word. 

[Tennesseer]

Sept 29, 2016 8:28:07 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Sept 29, 2016 8:25:15 GMT -5 Pants said:

Speaking of communism - does this week's Newsweek Trump/Castro stuff do anything to hurt him? 

Nothing will hurt him with his die hard supporters, but hopefully, the fact that he is so very friendly to regimes that have historically been our enemies in order to grub a little more money will matter to the undecided.

The Cuba issue could greatly harm Trump in south Florida with Cuban-American citizens who fled Cuba all these past years. Trump needs their vote to win Florida.