2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika · 29-06-2016 3:51pm

Its dead Jim wrote: »

With any luck Trump will hire Carly. She has been good at destroying what she touches.

I doubt he would pick her as VP since Cruz picked her as his VP running mate. Although I think she would be fine as a business adviser. Anybody ever do an analysis of how many HP and Compaq (organizations both hurting at the time) employees would have lost their jobs anyway if the merger hadn't happened? Anyway, I believe Trump said he would choose as his running mate someone with political and/or military savvy.

Amerika · 29-06-2016 4:08pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is an article of theirs about the Muslim kid that brought the clock to school..

Interesting story regarding Ahmed the clockboy.

Here is what CAIR put out in solidarity with him…
th?id=OIP.M15f1c09860f42f40cead5af4177ac05bo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=294&h=166

th?id=OIP.M15f1c09860f42f40cead5af4177ac05bo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=294&h=166

Here is what the actual clock looked like…

Nothing to worry about? Ignore any concerns over the prop bomb behind the curtain out of fear of being called racist?

Anyway, Ahmed is back in the USA for a visit and really misses anti-Muslim America.

So I would say HotAir.com is a good source of information in the presidential race when looking for a balance of reporting from the left, center, and right.

And again... please show me where anything in the HotAir article is factually wrong.

Black Swan · 29-06-2016 4:30pm

Amerika wrote: »

Didn't get to see the whole speech, so don't rightly know. But I'm guessing he didn't pull a Hillary Clinton and lie about his investments.

This typical distraction move strategy has become cliché. Whenever Trump is the subject of the discussion, and the evidence looks bad for Trump, ignore the damning evidence against Trump, and quickly shift to Hillary Clinton's failures.

I just read 2 of the Donald Trump depositions taken last December 2015 regarding his trial as a defendant for alleged fraud, racketeering, and corruption in the US District Court Trump University case held in California, and it was truly mind-numbing to read his constant and repetitive answers, over and over again, and his repeated memory loss whenever he might be held culpable for his actions at his failed Trump University.

His defense lawyer and legal firm continues to fight the release of the 48 deposition video tapes, wanting to keep them out of the public eye, because how they may visually expose Trump for who he really is to the public. So let's see the 48 SECRET DONALD TRUMP VIDEO TAPES, and let the voter decide.

Billy86 · 29-06-2016 4:35pm

Amerika wrote: »

What the Benghazi report says:

That is not what the Benghazi report said, though. Getting your news from conspiracy websites is an extremely efficient way of getting terrible biased, inaccurate and dishonest information.

Amerika wrote: »

Of course I do.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/28/benghazi-report-details-obamaclinton-failures-before-during-and-after-deadly-attacks/

No you don't. That's a conspiracy website, and the parts you quoted are from the conspiracy website and not the report.

Below are the links to the full report. It is something around 700 pages by the looks of it.

You claimed it said:
"The Obama/Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks."
Yet not one single instance of the words "was a disaster" appears anywhere in any of the reports.

You also claimed it said:
"During the attacks American lives could have been saved by the swift deployment of military assets, but political desires created a bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made."
Yet not one single instance of the words "lives could have been saved" appears anywhere in any of the reports.

And you also claimed it said:
"In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth."
Yet not one single instance of the worlds "chose politics and deception" appears anywhere in any of the reports.

Explain please.

It appears that either your confirmation bias kicked in and led you to believe that these were the 'official quotes' solely on the basis that they backed up your prejudice, or you were lying. There's no two ways about it.

Amerika wrote: »

Ah yes, the coveted Ad Hominem attack. Standard fare from the left. Hate to tell you this, but it gets rather old.

So... what in the article is WRONG?

The post you quoted was in no way an ad hominem and I have put the definition below for your own benefit. Please do not hide behind a wall of victimhood when pressed to back up your claims. It is highly counterproductive to generating constructive conversation.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

Amerika wrote: »

I posted the full report above (#7761). It's 800 pages.

Amerika · 29-06-2016 4:46pm

Black Swan wrote: »

This typical distraction move strategy has become cliché. Whenever Trump is the subject of the discussion, and the evidence looks bad for Trump, ignore the damning evidence against Trump, and quickly shift to Hillary Clinton's failures.

I just read 2 of the Donald Trump depositions taken last December 2015 regarding his trial as a defendant for alleged fraud, racketeering, and corruption in the US District Court Trump University case held in California, and it was truly mind-numbing to read his constant and repetitive answers, over and over again, and his repeated memory loss whenever he might be held culpable for his actions at his failed Trump University.

His defense lawyer and legal firm continues to fight the release of the 48 deposition video tapes, wanting to keep them out of the public eye, because how they may visually expose Trump for who he really is to the public. So let's see the 48 SECRET DONALD TRUMP VIDEO TAPES, and let the voter decide.

At this point the race for president is between Trump and Clinton. And yes, we compare the pros and cons of both candidate in our decision. We will look at the lawsuit over Trump U and compare it to the depositions Clinton’s peeps regarding her basement server housing National Security and Classified information. And it is equally as mind-numbing to see her subordinates loss of memory, their refusals to answer questions, and the hundreds of time they invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a deposition in their testimonies. We will weigh both and decide which is worse. No cliché... just the facts ma’am.

And while you’re at it, have you ever demanded to see the SECRET HILLARY CLINTON SPEECHES TO WALLSTREET she refused to make public?

Amerika · 29-06-2016 4:48pm

Billy86 wrote: »

That is not what the Benghazi report said, though. Getting your news from conspiracy websites is an extremely efficient way of getting terrible biased, inaccurate and dishonest information.
No you don't. That's a conspiracy website, and the parts you quoted are from the conspiracy website and not the report.

Below are the links to the full report. It is something around 700 pages by the looks of it.

You claimed it said:
"The Obama/Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks."
Yet not one single instance of the words "was a disaster" appears anywhere in any of the reports.

You also claimed it said:
"During the attacks American lives could have been saved by the swift deployment of military assets, but political desires created a bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made."
Yet not one single instance of the words "lives could have been saved" appears anywhere in any of the reports.

And you also claimed it said:
"In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth."
Yet not one single instance of the worlds "chose politics and deception" appears anywhere in any of the reports.

Explain please.

It appears that either your confirmation bias kicked in and led you to believe that these were the 'official quotes' solely on the basis that they backed up your prejudice, or you were lying. There's no two ways about it.

The post you quoted was in no way an ad hominem and I have put the definition below for your own benefit. Please do not hide behind a wall of victimhood when pressed to back up your claims. It is highly counterproductive to generating constructive conversation.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

Cite the section and page where you found these quotes. All you need to do is hit Control+F and put them in, so also don't try and hide behind a defense of "I don't have time to read the full thing". Here are all of the links to the full report:

THE BENGHAZI REPORT
http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/1%20Intro%20Material.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/2%20Part%20I%20Redacted%20DR_0.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/3%20Part%20II%20Redacted%20DR.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/4%20Part%20III%20Redacted%20DR.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/5%20Part%20IV%20Compliance.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/6%20Part%20V%20Recommendations.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/7%20App%20A%20H%20Res%20567.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/8%20App%20B%20Persons%20and%20Orgs.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/9%20App%20C%20Questions%20to%20POTUS.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/10%20App%20D%20Timeline%20of%20Security%20Events.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/11%20App%20E%20Security%20Incidents.pdf
http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/12%20App%20F%20Benghazi%20Security%20Redacted.pdf

I did quote passages from the official report earlier. Words have meaning... and most will, IMO, derive at the same conclusion, in summary, from the official report.

TheDoctor · 29-06-2016 4:50pm

And while you’re at it, have you ever demanded to see the SECRET HILLARY CLINTON SPEECHES TO WALLSTREET she refused to make public?[/QUOTE]

Yes, and The Donalds tax returns.

InTheTrees · 29-06-2016 4:54pm

Amerika wrote: »

At this point the race for president is between Trump and Clinton.

I'm still not convinced about that.

I think there's a growing chance that the GOP will engineer some kind of ouster and replace him at the convention.

I also think there's a chance he'll quit.

Amerika · 29-06-2016 4:58pm

TheDoctor wrote: »

And while you’re at it, have you ever demanded to see the SECRET HILLARY CLINTON SPEECHES TO WALLSTREET she refused to make public?

Yes, and The Donalds tax returns.

I would like to see The Donald's tax returns, also. In addition, the Clinton Foundations' tax filings and all the times they have had to revise them after they were discovered through audits to have conveniently left major things out.

Amerika · 29-06-2016 5:01pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm still not convinced about that.

I think there's a growing chance that the GOP will engineer some kind of ouster and replace him at the convention.

I also think there's a chance he'll quit.

You could be right.

But I recently read the changes the RNC are making to the process won't take affect until 2020. So I think we're stuck with Trump this time around, unless he quits.

And if Clinton is indicted, or the DOJ refuses to indict her against the recommendations of the FBI, I could see the DNC going with a Biden/Warren ticket.

Billy86 · 29-06-2016 5:02pm

Amerika wrote: »

I did quote passages from the official report earlier. Words have meaning... and most will, IMO, derive at the same conclusion, in summary, from the official report.

Don't try and hide again, answer for and cite what you stated. Here is what you stated, your other posts have no relevance to you trying to pass the below off as fact:

Amerika wrote: »

What the Benghazi report says:

What the Benghazi report says:

The Obama/Clinton policy in Libya was a disaster but for political purposes warnings were ignored and political ends were prioritized over security needs in the months leading up to the September 11 attacks.

During the attacks American lives could have been saved by the swift deployment of military assets, but political desires created a bureaucratic paralysis preventing key decisions from being made.

In the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attacks, the Obama/Clinton teams chose politics and deception rather than tell the American people the truth.

This forum isn't intended like After Hours etc, it is not a 'lie as much as you can get away with' scenario. You claimed those three comments were from the Benghazi report. I have given you full links to the Benghazi report. Cite the section and page in the Benghazi report where those comments you claimed were, are.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in thinking it was your confirmation bias kicking in, but now that you're attempting to avoid answering the question, I'm beginning to think you might have been knowingly, a little less than honest.

Billy86 · 29-06-2016 5:05pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm still not convinced about that.

I think there's a growing chance that the GOP will engineer some kind of ouster and replace him at the convention.

I also think there's a chance he'll quit.

Much like the remain campaign trying to find a way to not go ahead with the Brexit, finding a way to oust Trump after he was democratically elected for the nomination would be a horrendous move for a number of reasons, both ideologically with regards to the democratic process, and pragmatically in terms of giving rise to something even worse.

Black Swan · 29-06-2016 5:07pm

Amerika wrote: »

...the Clinton Foundations' tax filings and all the times they have had to revise them after they were discovered through audits to have conveniently left major things out.

Clinton Foundation:

Annual Reports for 2004-2015
Audited Financial Statements & IRS Form 990s for 1998-2014
Amended Returns Fact Sheet
Tax-Exempt Status Materials

Black Swan · 30-06-2016 6:43am

The Federal Election Commission on Wednesday received filed complaints stating that foreign government officials in Iceland, Scotland, Australia, and England received e-mailed fundraising donation pitches from the Trump campaign. Not only is it illegal for a candidate to accept money from foreign nationals, it's also a violation of the law to ask for it.

Will this be Trump's email scandal?

InTheTrees · 30-06-2016 12:40pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Will this be Trump's email scandal?

Amazing. Apparently british MP's have been spammed to such an extent that the Parlimentary server has had to block Team Tump.

But they'll probably get away with it by claiming incompetence. Its another sign that he has no idea what he's doing and doesnt seem to want to listen.

Anyway I thought he was so incredibly rich he could finance the campaign himself?

Suryavarman · 30-06-2016 12:55pm

Black Swan wrote: »

The Federal Election Commission on Wednesday received filed complaints stating that foreign government officials in Iceland, Scotland, Australia, and England received e-mailed fundraising donation pitches from the Trump campaign. Not only is it illegal for a candidate to accept money from foreign nationals, it's also a violation of the law to ask for it.

Will this be Trump's email scandal?

I look forward to the Republican led witch hunt and widespread media coverage to follow this. /s

20Cent · 30-06-2016 1:24pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

I look forward to the Republican led witch hunt and widespread media coverage to follow this. /s

It will be like the 22 million emails about the war in Iraq George Bush "lost", huge controversy. Not.

Amerika · 30-06-2016 1:50pm

Black Swan wrote: »

The Federal Election Commission on Wednesday received filed complaints stating that foreign government officials in Iceland, Scotland, Australia, and England received e-mailed fundraising donation pitches from the Trump campaign. Not only is it illegal for a candidate to accept money from foreign nationals, it's also a violation of the law to ask for it.

Will this be Trump's email scandal?

I wouldn’t doubt it happened, and that it was done in error by the campaign. The problem with email addresses is there is no physical addresses associated with them. I expect the FEC to slap a token fine on the Trump campaign, because if it caused a major problem for Trump, foreigners will suddenly be coming out of the woodwork making complaints of receiving donation requests from all the campaigns. If the FEC goes hard on Trump, then they will have to do the same for every candidate, and I don’t see that happening.

And common sense dictates if a campaign intentionally wanted to violate campaign finance laws they wouldn’t go after peanuts in the $1 to $2,700 range. That they’d set up a charitable foundation that spends most of it's funds on overhead instead of actual charitable work, and hire slick lawyers to skirt election laws so a significant overlap can exist of salaries and expenses between the foundation and campaigning efforts.

Akrasia · 30-06-2016 10:36pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Amazing. Apparently british MP's have been spammed to such an extent that the Parlimentary server has had to block Team Tump.

But they'll probably get away with it by claiming incompetence. Its another sign that he has no idea what he's doing and doesnt seem to want to listen.

Anyway I thought he was so incredibly rich he could finance the campaign himself?

Does the Federal Election Commission have any actual power though?

What are their options when they detect blatant rule breaking?

InTheTrees · 30-06-2016 11:19pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Does the Federal Election Commission have any actual power though?
What are their options when they detect blatant rule breaking?

I'm sure its a mistake due to incompetence more than anything else. That's the real story.

PopePalpatine · 30-06-2016 11:48pm

Can Trump's collection of failures get any dodgier? Yes it can!

RobertKK · 01-07-2016 1:50am

So is this correct: the Attorney General and her team are involved in investigating Hillary Clinton's email server scandal. Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix sees the plane of the Attorney General on the tarmac and goes onto the plane and has a 30 minute meeting.
It is being called the 'fix is in', that Bill was trying to fix the outcome of the investigation into Hillary's emails.

Black Swan · 01-07-2016 2:37am

InTheTrees wrote: »

Amazing. Apparently british MP's have been spammed to such an extent that the Parlimentary server has had to block Team Tump.

Trump fundraising emails have "flooded" British Parliament MPs to such an extent that it's been brought up on the floor: “Members of Parliament are being bombarded by electronic communications from Team Trump... Efforts to try to have these deleted have failed. I wonder if you’d be kind enough to intercede with the Digital Services Department to see if they may be blocked.” In like manner the list of foreign politicians being "flooded" by these Team Trump emails has been expanding to several countries since first reported.

InTheTrees wrote: »

But they'll probably get away with it by claiming incompetence.

Or like when Trump was being legally deposed as a defendant in the current Trump University alleged fraud, racketeering, and corruption case last December 2015-January 2016, he may just claim that he does not remember many, many, many times, or that he had delegated that responsibility to someone else, and therefore denies being responsible and legally culpable (e.g., just like his claim of ignorance when he delegated the hiring of illegal Polish immigrants to build a Trump building).

InTheTrees wrote: »

Anyway I thought he was so incredibly rich he could finance the campaign himself?

Early in the Trump campaign Donald Trump proclaimed that he did not need donations because he was so rich he could afford it, and because he did not need donors, he was not obligated to any vested interests. Those clueless Trump supporters accepted this, and continue to ignore the existence of Trump PACs and Super PACs, making him just as obligated to donors as any other candidate running for 2016 president.

Amerika wrote: »

I wouldn’t doubt it happened, and that it was done in error by the campaign. The problem with email addresses is there is no physical addresses associated with them.

Team Trump has been "flooding" fundraising emails specifically to MP's at the British Parliamentary addresses, consequently the MP's have asked their Digital Services Department to block them. This is intentional, not randomly sent to generic email addresses. Just another example of Donald Trump's ZERO experience in diplomacy (when running for the highest diplomatic office in USA), and the adverse affects it is now causing with foreign government official complaints from several countries around the world.

Black Swan · 01-07-2016 3:19am

Amerika wrote: »

Oh yeah, the Quinnipiac Poll from 6/21 to 6/27 has Clinton at 42.0 and Trump at 40.0.

All June 2016 national polls still show Clinton ahead of Trump, ranging from 2 to 12 percentage points, and the most recent (Republican leaning) Fox News poll shows Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by six points, 44% to 38%.

InTheTrees · 01-07-2016 4:31am

Black Swan wrote: »

All June 2016 national polls still show Clinton ahead of Trump, ranging from 2 to 12 percentage points, and the most recent (Republican leaning) Fox News poll shows Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by six points, 44% to 38%.

Nate Silver is giving a 79% probability of a Clinton win versus 21% to Trump.

Things can change though, apparently Dukakis was up by double digits too at this point in his race.

Black Swan · 01-07-2016 8:10am

InTheTrees wrote: »

Nate Silver is giving a 79% probability of a Clinton win versus 21% to Trump.

Things can change though, apparently Dukakis was up by double digits too at this point in his race.

I would agree that it's too early to call. It will probably be closer between Clinton and Trump as 8 November draws near, and unlike previous selections of VP running mates, this presidential election may be unique in that the respective VPs that Clinton or Trump selects may make the difference in a narrowly contested finish. Methinks Clinton should pick Bernie Sanders to unify the Democratic party and draw in Sanders independents. The 2nd alternative would be to pick Elisabeth Warren, but I have mixed feelings about the image of an all-female ticket. Warren would also draw-in Sanders' half of the Democratic party, as well as pull in his independents, but there may be a male gender backlash against an all female ticket. Then again, there may be a female voter landslide with an all-female ticket for the 1st time in US history. Who knows? No historical examples to repeat themselves in this unique case.

I also think that Trump should pick an experienced and well known female governor to offset his troublesome image among female registered voters, as well as to provide his ticket with governance experience, which Trump has ZERO for the highest elected US government office. If Trump picks a state governor, rather than a DC establishment insider, he can continue to claim that his ticket is not corrupted by DC politics. Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor would have been my 1st choice checking the boxes of female, Hispanic, conservative, and governance experience, but Donald Trump's MOUTH pretty much trashed Martinez recently because she did not endorse him or attend his NM rally. Nikki Haley, South Carolina governor would be my 2nd choice, especially after the visibility she got for the January Republican rebuttal of Obama's 2016 State of the Union Address. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma governor would be my 3rd choice, given that she may complement Trump's appeal to Northern states by her appealing to Southern states.

My 2 euros, no 2 bucks worth...

Christy42 · 01-07-2016 8:14am

Black Swan wrote: »

I would agree that it's too early to call. It will probably be closer between Clinton and Trump as 8 November draws near, and unlike previous selections of VP running mates, this presidential election may be unique in that the respective VPs that Clinton or Trump selects may make the difference in a narrowly contested finish. Methinks Clinton should pick Bernie Sanders to unify the Democratic party and draw in Sanders independents. The 2nd alternative would be to pick Elisabeth Warren, but I have mixed feelings about the image of an all-female ticket. Warren would also draw-in Sanders' half of the Democratic party, as well as pull in his independents, but there may be a male gender backlash against an all female ticket. Then again, there may be a female voter landslide with an all-female ticket for the 1st time in US history. Who knows? No historical examples to repeat themselves in this unique case.

I also think that Trump should pick an experienced and well known female governor to offset his troublesome image among female registered voters, as well as to provide his ticket with governance experience, which Trump has ZERO for the highest elected US government office. If Trump picks a state governor, rather than a DC establishment insider, he can continue to claim that his ticket is not corrupted by DC politics. Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor would have been my 1st choice checking the boxes of female, Hispanic, conservative, and governance experience, but Donald Trump's MOUTH pretty much trashed Martinez recently because she did not endorse him or attend his NM rally. Nikki Haley, South Carolina governor would be my 2nd choice, especially after the visibility she got for the January Republican rebuttal of Obama's 2016 State of the Union Address. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma governor would be my 3rd choice, given that she may complement Trump's appeal to Northern states by her appealing to Southern states.

My 2 euros, no 2 bucks worth...

I would imagine anyone put off by a two women ticket won't vote for Hillary anyway. I could be entirely wrong though.

Black Swan · 01-07-2016 9:18am

Did Donald Trump just implode, confound, or contradict what advantage he may have had by attempting to exploit the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, when NOW he too has a growing TRUMP INTERNATIONAL FUNDRAISING EMAIL SCANDAL, where it's both illegal to solicit funds from foreigners or to receive such funds (against Federal Elections Commission laws)? How can anyone condemn Hillary's emails, without NOW reminding them of Trump's email scandal?

With this mushrooming international diplomatic mistake, Trump is exemplifying how much he is the Celebrity Presidential "Apprentice" (with emphasis on a very inexperienced foreign diplomatic "Apprentice"). The international foreign press is exploding with condemnations for Trump "flooding" foreign government official email boxes with Trump Team fundraising spam in a growing number of countries around the world. It appears that Donald Trump and his Team Trump doesn't have the slightest idea what international diplomacy protocols are when contacting foreign diplomats, suggesting that he and his Team are not even qualified to work in the "email room" of diplomacy.

And secondly, how can Trump talk against globalisation, while at the same time soliciting funds for Trump's election globally? Does anyone see the contradiction and the craic?

RobertKK · 01-07-2016 12:05pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Did Donald Trump just implode, confound, or contradict what advantage he may have had by attempting to exploit the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, when NOW he too has a growing TRUMP INTERNATIONAL FUNDRAISING EMAIL SCANDAL, where it's both illegal to solicit funds from foreigners or to receive such funds (against Federal Elections Commission laws)? How can anyone condemn Hillary's emails, without NOW reminding them of Trump's email scandal?

With this mushrooming international diplomatic mistake, Trump is exemplifying how much he is the Celebrity Presidential "Apprentice" (with emphasis on a very inexperienced foreign diplomatic "Apprentice"). The international foreign press is exploding with condemnations for Trump "flooding" foreign government official email boxes with Trump Team fundraising spam in a growing number of countries around the world. It appears that Donald Trump and his Team Trump doesn't have the slightest idea what international diplomacy protocols are when contacting foreign diplomats, suggesting that he and his Team are not even qualified to work in the "email room" of diplomacy.

And secondly, how can Trump talk against globalisation, while at the same time soliciting funds for Trump's election globally? Does anyone see the contradiction and the craic?

The crown prince of Saudi indicated they were funding 20% of Hillary's campaign.

01-07-2016 12:12pm

The presidential race is much like the Democratic race was, not close at all. Barring some disaster Clinton has it in the bag 4 months ahead of the end. 4 months before the Democrats' convention was the end of March and people still insisted Sanders had a fighting chance.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments