Donald Trump

iLikeWaffles

Billy86 wrote: »

Case in point... it's amazing that idiots like this think they're doing anything to persuade the neutrals.

You would be surprised!

Seen that new show on Netflix (Designated survivor) it's fear driven muck that some people might have on their minds come its last episode in November.

I'm really looking forward to this election. It will be full on traditional presidential hopeful V's modern social media personality- such a strange combination but politics undergrads will be writing their masters thesis on this for the next few years.

Trump has obviously based everything he's said on the type/demographic of voter that turns up at the polls on the day as that ultimately is what it's all about. What might go against him is that people he's offended may well get to the polling stations this time around, just to spite him, but that's not definite; apathy may still reign on the day.

This is one hell of a close election- I believe he has the youth vote purely on the basis of his TV Apprentice show but youth often don't vote. The blue collar worker is out of work more than in work these days so what he's saying around jobs/making America great will resonate with a lot of American voters.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

To be fair, Farage condeded defea before the votes were counted - but that's because he's a coward. Polls did show 'leave' winning for a solid 6 weeks or so until the pro-leave terrorist attack that killed Jo Cox, reactionary move went back to remain for the week or two between then and the vote.

Yeah LEAVE was only a shock to people who weren't paying attention.

Calina

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Trump's 1995 tax return has made it into the wild. While a lot of people are latching on to his ability to write off tax against that loss for 15 years afterwards, the key takeaway point is this business man whose candidacy is predicated on his business acumen could make a personal loss of over 900 million dollars in 1995.

I suspect the calls for him to release his tax records are only going to get louder.

20Cent

Trump being classy again mocking Hillary Clinton.
Horrible man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11nDqANBsLE

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Trump being classy again mocking Hillary Clinton.
Horrible man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11nDqANBsLE

Quite disgusting alright but that's his way. He's making himself out that he has stamina. With so many goons around him through the years doing his bidding along with being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he's never had to a proper days work in his life- it's him that doesn't have the stamina.

Samaris

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Yeah LEAVE was only a shock to people who weren't paying attention.

I can't agree with that. I was one of the people that called that one wrongly, but I had absolutely been paying attention to it. Experienced pollsters called that one wrong, so no real surprise that some spod in another country did too :P

It was shown as close at times, but in general Stay was more or less ahead until the end as I recall.

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

I can't agree with that. I was one of the people that called that one wrongly, but I had absolutely been paying attention to it. Experienced pollsters called that one wrong, so no real surprise that some spod in another country did too :P

It was shown as close at times, but in general Stay was more or less ahead until the end as I recall.

Actually remain was comfortably winning for a good long while earlier on, and did pull narrowly ahead in the 10 or so days before the terrorist attack that killed Jo Cox probably due to negative associations, but before that 'leave' had pulled ahead for a good month or so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016

Without the terrorist attack I reckon the polls would have continued to show 'leave' winning by up until the day of the referendum.

Samaris

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually remain was comfortably winning for a good long while earlier on, and did pull narrowly ahead in the 10 or so days before the terrorist attack that killed Jo Cox probably due to negative associations, but before that 'leave' had pulled ahead for a good month or so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016

Without the terrorist attack I reckon the polls would have continued to show 'leave' winning by up until the day of the referendum.

Hm, I must have missed a chunk then. Agree with your numbers, they're pretty clear, although not unquestionable at the time as the differences come within margin of error, but they are there and were proved out in the referendum itself.

20Cent

Throwing mud makes people look at the mudslingers past.
Guliani had three wives one of which was his cousin!

InTheTrees

20Cent wrote: »

Throwing mud makes people look at the mudslingers past.
Guliani had three wives one of which was his cousin!

He informed his second wife he wanted a divorce through a press conference.

He was mayor of New York but his wife threw him out of the official residence.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually remain was comfortably winning for a good long while earlier on, and did pull narrowly ahead in the 10 or so days before the terrorist attack that killed Jo Cox probably due to negative associations, but before that 'leave' had pulled ahead for a good month or so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016

Without the terrorist attack I reckon the polls would have continued to show 'leave' winning by up until the day of the referendum.

Yup, the polls had a hair's breadth in it. "Conventional Wisdom" leaned towards remain. Similar to polls in the US had it at a toss up a few days ago. You'd imagine that Clinton's bump will regress back to a couple of points after Trumps terrible performance in the first debate.

She has to hope he keeps tweeting at 3 in the morning like an angry ex-husband and he has to hope she coughs on camera at some stage so his supporters can say she's being Weekend at Bernie's-ed

Billy86

This is also true, though I reckon the first debate went far better than the Clinton campaign could have expected, and they know just how easy he is got at on a number of issues now. I really don't think Trump has it in him to be able to do any different than he did in the first debate over the next two. Sure, he might be able to keep it together for 15-20 minutes early on, but narcissism is a proper mental illness and I genuinely don't believe he has the faculties to control it or himself. His actions in the last week also show that, he is legitimately unhinged off the back of that night.

Clinton's campaign's biggest risk on that end is leaning too heavily on it though, and expecting it . I've got a funny feeling the Trump campaign has been sitting on a big reveal/scandal for a while now, and it'll come out within 10 days of the election proper. Not sure what it would be, but it's just a hunch. For as much as Trump might be an idiot, his campaign manager Stephen Bannon, loathe him though I may, is incredibly good at what he does and knows how to twist details. I'm thinking they'll leave it very close so that even if it turns out to be complete bullsh*t, that truth likely won't surface until after November 8th.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

This is also true, though I reckon the first debate went far better than the Clinton campaign could have expected, and they know just how easy he is got at on a number of issues now. I really don't think Trump has it in him to be able to do any different than he did in the first debate over the next two. Sure, he might be able to keep it together for 15-20 minutes early on, but narcissism is a proper mental illness and I genuinely don't believe he has the faculties to control it or himself. His actions in the last week also show that, he is legitimately unhinged off the back of that night.

Clinton's campaign's biggest risk on that end is leaning too heavily on it though, and expecting it . I've got a funny feeling the Trump campaign has been sitting on a big reveal/scandal for a while now, and it'll come out within 10 days of the election proper. Not sure what it would be, but it's just a hunch. For as much as Trump might be an idiot, his campaign manager Stephen Bannon, loathe him though I may, is incredibly good at what he does and knows how to twist details. I'm thinking they'll leave it very close so that even if it turns out to be complete bullsh*t, that truth likely won't surface until after November 8th.

I agree, but I'd add that I'd expect the Clinton camp has another doizie or two to drop. She shoe horned the Machado reference at the end of the debate.

I thought his claim that not paying tax was smart would have scuttled him, as any other year that would have turned a lot of hard working people off him. That's worse than saying 47% of people think they deserve food.But she knew challenging him on women and Latinas would get under his skin, and have him up at 3am tweeting about it.

This could swing more than once in the last month.

Sand

Billy86 wrote: »

I've got a funny feeling the Trump campaign has been sitting on a big reveal/scandal for a while now, and it'll come out within 10 days of the election proper. Not sure what it would be, but it's just a hunch. For as much as Trump might be an idiot, his campaign manager Stephen Bannon, loathe him though I may, is incredibly good at what he does and knows how to twist details. I'm thinking they'll leave it very close so that even if it turns out to be complete bullsh*t, that truth likely won't surface until after November 8th.

I think if there was some reveal/scandal, Trump would have blabbed about it by now. He doesn't have the self discipline to stay on message for even 5 minutes. If there was some secret Hillary kryptonite he couldn't resist bragging about it.

As it is, I think Clinton just needs to fight smart in the next two debates. She doesn't need to set the pace, Donald will be the one eager to get over the first debate loss. Let Donald be Donald, brag, and shout and embarrass himself. Let him talk and demonstrate how little he knows. Pick him off on the facts and get under his skin with the accusations about racism/sexism. Act the better and more presidential woman when Trump tries to fight dirty with slurs about her marriage and Bills infidelity. His core support will love Trump being Trump, but it has and will alienate everyone else.

Trent Houseboat

Sand wrote: »

I think if there was some reveal/scandal, Trump would have blabbed about it by now. He doesn't have the self discipline to stay on message for even 5 minutes. If there was some secret Hillary kryptonite he couldn't resist bragging about it.

As it is, I think Clinton just needs to fight smart in the next two debates. She doesn't need to set the pace, Donald will be the one eager to get over the first debate loss. Let Donald be Donald, brag, and shout and embarrass himself. Let him talk and demonstrate how little he knows. Pick him off on the facts and get under his skin with the accusations about racism/sexism. Act the better and more presidential woman when Trump tries to fight dirty with slurs about her marriage and Bills infidelity. His core support will love Trump being Trump, but it has and will alienate everyone else.

I can't imagine we'll hear much from Hillary in the next week as long as Donald keeps digging a hole for himself. She/her team know/s she's not liked. They'll do as little as possible while Donald keeps harassing a former beauty pagent contestant.

Next debate is a town hall so we'll see how she does on the fly. My guess is better than a man who doesn't know the end of his sentences before he starts them.

Billy86

Sand wrote: »

I think if there was some reveal/scandal, Trump would have blabbed about it by now. He doesn't have the self discipline to stay on message for even 5 minutes. If there was some secret Hillary kryptonite he couldn't resist bragging about it.

As it is, I think Clinton just needs to fight smart in the next two debates. She doesn't need to set the pace, Donald will be the one eager to get over the first debate loss. Let Donald be Donald, brag, and shout and embarrass himself. Let him talk and demonstrate how little he knows. Pick him off on the facts and get under his skin with the accusations about racism/sexism. Act the better and more presidential woman when Trump tries to fight dirty with slurs about her marriage and Bills infidelity. His core support will love Trump being Trump, but it has and will alienate everyone else.

Good point, though maybe Bannon would even keep it a secret from Trump or anyone outside his ultra-tight circle at Breitbart (who would likely be doing the research on such a thing, as opposed to the campaign itself)? Much easier said than done, but he is one of the very best at what he does so I wouldn't entirely put it beyond him. That said, not a fan of Clinton either but I do hope you're right!

Agreed though that it is imperative on her end to keep the 'higher ground' mentality (with some jabs here and there, especially in the last two debates - it only takes something tiny to set him off, and he keeps going and going all on his ownio) rather than get down in the gutter with him. The 'deplorables' comment is a great example, that was a huge own goal on her part.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

Good point, though maybe Bannon would even keep it a secret from Trump or anyone outside his ultra-tight circle at Breitbart (who would likely be doing the research on such a thing, as opposed to the campaign itself)? Much easier said than done, but he is one of the very best at what he does so I wouldn't entirely put it beyond him. That said, not a fan of Clinton either but I do hope you're right! :

Agreed though that it is imperative on her end to keep the 'higher ground' mentality (with some jabs here and there, especially in the last two debates - it only takes something tiny to set him off, and he keeps going and going all on his ownio) rather than get down in the gutter with him. The 'deplorables' comment is a great example, that was a huge own goal on her part.

I reckon one more debate would do the job. If she handles the next one well I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled out of the 3rd. And if he did show for it, he'd mire himself in muck.

I'm sick of media bias.

"Trump lost 900 million in 1995 so there's a possibility that meant he didn't have to pay taxes after that."

That's not news.. It's just not. Seriously, can you imagine that in any other country. "This candidate lost millions 20 years ago so we're going to assume he didn't pay taxes and turn it into a scandal."



He's a complete idiot but just watching so many people fall for the media spin makes me want him to win and I barely believe anything negative I read about him anymore.

And he's right to sue the newspaper. They took a lose in one year and extrapolated a scenario where he didn't pay taxes, which if true, wouldn't be illegal anyway.



Same as this scandal about his running mate and the guy who was wrongly convicted. It was on about line 30 that the guy was out of prison.. 99% of people who read about that story assume he's still in prison and there's some injustice when there isn't. I had a friend bitching about it yesterday who didn't realise he was free and didn't realise that no governor has ever done what the media are suddenly berating him for not doing.

The take a quote about respecting the judicial process and make people think he's respecting the prosecutors when he was in fact talking about the normal way of getting a record cleared. He should sue as well.

Most of you will assume that I'm pro-Trump based on this post. I don't throw away my intelligence and question what I read, therefore I'm a racist. That's how some or my friends think.

Billy86

If he didn't keep lying about not being able to disclose them, or being 'smart' by not paying and then claiming he never said it etc, it wouldn't even be getting much attention. If the media were really biased against him, they'd be talking about his upcoming fraud trials against the American public a hell of a lot more.

And yet what she said in her wall street speeches would tell us a lot more about her intentions than his lack of gas returns.

InTheTrees

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not news.. It's just not. Seriously, can you imagine that in any other country. "This candidate lost millions 20 years ago so we're going to assume he didn't pay taxes and turn it into a scandal.

Its turns out a presidential candidate, who never stops claiming to be a brilliant businessman, who we already knew had declared multiple bancrupcies, had lost Nine Hundred Million Dollars and you don't think that's news???

You don't think that might be a bit concerning, especially since he keeps going on about how great he is with money?

And its the us taxpayers who eventually foot the bill for this crap. Companies keep writing off loses and eventually someone has to pay to keep the country running.

So hearing that Trump was perfectly entitled to claim back his loss by not paying any income tax for the the next 15 years is defiantly of concern to voters.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its turns out a presidential candidate, who never stops claiming to be a brilliant businessman, who we already knew had declared multiple bancrupcies, had lost Nine Hundred Million Dollars and you don't think that's news???

You don't think that might be a bit concerning, especially since he keeps going on about how great he is with money?

It isn't news.. He literally admits in the Apprentice just after a minute in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgiWk4zWnJo

Here are some graphs of famously good businessmen swinging up and down by billions.. They don't always "lose money". It's the stuff they own changing in value. I don't know the details of Trumps swings but it is normal when you own tonnes of real estate and companies.
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/kerryadolan/files/2013/04/0401_slim-v-gates-chart6.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/25/11/308DC42600000578-3415471-image-a-22_1453720118367.jpg

And you have to be very biased to hold bankruptcy against a person. It's a part of business, especially for people who are involved in lots of businesses. I'm not even saying anything pro-Trump here.. Again, logic and reason are apparently bad things if applied to the wrong people.

InTheTrees

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And you have to be very biased to hold bankruptcy against a person. It's a part of business, especially for people who are involved in lots of businesses.

Yes, I hold it against him. Bankruptcy is not a prerequisite for success, so I'd rather have a president who hasn't done it multiple times.

Outlaw Pete

And how much has the national debt increased under Obama's watch?

In a week people will be bored hearing about Trump's finances with regards to business, if they're not already.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, I hold it against him. Bankruptcy is not a prerequisite for success, so I'd rather have a president who hasn't done it multiple times.

And let me guess, Hillary somehow turning $1k into $99k in 10 months trading cattle futures was just good business? And when the Clintons went broke and stole all that stuff from the White House, that's different to going bankrupt so it was a non-issue?


Or.. I'm hoping.. You see problems with both candidates?

dwayneshintzy

Deleted User wrote: »

And when the Clintons went broke and stole all that stuff from the White House, that's different to going bankrupt so it was a non-issue?

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/

dwayneshintzy

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/

The classic approach.. Take the most serious claim of an event, prove that it's not all true and then use it as evidence that none of it's true while hoping no one reads all of it.


All told, the Clintons paid back or returned approximately $136,000 worth of furniture, artwork, china and other household items they had kept upon leaving office, with $86,000 of that total consisting of personal gifts they would presumably have been allowed to retain but decided to pay for to avoid the appearance of impropriety. About $50,000 of the total comprised items they had removed but were later determined to belong to the government.

A House government reform subcommittee conducted a year-long investigation concluding in 2002 which found that many of the gifts received by the Clintons had been undervalued, some were never reported and some were listed as lost or missing. No allegations of illegality were made, but the subcommittee's report recommended that the existing, overly complex system for overseeing the receipt, valuation and disposition of presidential gifts be overhauled.


Sounds a lot like stealing to me.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

The classic approach.. Take the most serious claim of an event, prove that it's not all true and then use it as evidence that none of it's true while hoping no one reads all of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sick of media bias.

"Trump lost 900 million in 1995 so there's a possibility that meant he didn't have to pay taxes after that."

That's not news.. It's just not. Seriously, can you imagine that in any other country. "This candidate lost millions 20 years ago so we're going to assume he didn't pay taxes and turn it into a scandal."

And he's right to sue the newspaper. They took a lose in one year and extrapolated a scenario where he didn't pay taxes, which if true, wouldn't be illegal anyway.

You're doing, the exact same thing you're complaining about, regarding Trump's taxes.

It's not the legality of Trump's tax avoidance that's the issue, it's his tax avoidance. This is a man who many times in the past has complained about people not paying their taxes while actively avoiding paying any tax he can get away with. This is a man who is running for President under the banner of being a brilliant businessman and lost over $900m in one year during the boom. This is a man who exemplifies everything wrong with capitalism but says he's the only one who can fix the problems of capitalism.

Yes, the media takes every sliver of news it can get and blows it up out of proportion. That's nothing new. But at the same time, considering his staunch refusal to release his tax info like every other candidate for 40 years has done (and which he slammed Mitt Romney for being slow to release his), this is important because it gives an insight into what is likely contained in those tax forms which he doesn't want disclosed.

Media bias or not, there is validity in the media covering it. Hell, they covered Hillary's "basement dweller" comment even though she never used that term and the full transcript shows she was being sympathetic to those in that situation.

R P McMurphy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm sick of media bias.

"Trump lost 900 million in 1995 so there's a possibility that meant he didn't have to pay taxes after that."

That's not news.. It's just not. Seriously, can you imagine that in any other country. "This candidate lost millions 20 years ago so we're going to assume he didn't pay taxes and turn it into a scandal."



He's a complete idiot but just watching so many people fall for the media spin makes me want him to win and I barely believe anything negative I read about him anymore.

And he's right to sue the newspaper. They took a lose in one year and extrapolated a scenario where he didn't pay taxes, which if true, wouldn't be illegal anyway.



Same as this scandal about his running mate and the guy who was wrongly convicted. It was on about line 30 that the guy was out of prison.. 99% of people who read about that story assume he's still in prison and there's some injustice when there isn't. I had a friend bitching about it yesterday who didn't realise he was free and didn't realise that no governor has ever done what the media are suddenly berating him for not doing.

The take a quote about respecting the judicial process and make people think he's respecting the prosecutors when he was in fact talking about the normal way of getting a record cleared. He should sue as well.

Most of you will assume that I'm pro-Trump based on this post. I don't throw away my intelligence and question what I read, therefore I'm a racist. That's how some or my friends think.

The man doesn't need a biased media to paint him in a horrible light, he is perfectly capable of doing that himself whenever he opens his mouth