Donald Trump

A Little Pony

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

"Trump got money from the Russians!!!"

So did Hillary. And for more dangerous reason.
http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

Approving the sale of uranium for millions in payment to her.
(Even Bill got 500,000 for speaking to a Russian bank.)
Oh, wait, sorry, those millions were actually donations to her charity. The same "charity" that received tens of millions of dollars from Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and UBS.
The same "charity" that received tens of millions of dollars from China, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and the UAE.

You need to actually read the articles you link.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.
Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.

For twenty years, the GOP has been trying to get Hillary Clinton. All those smoking guns and they haven't been able to lay a finger on her. :rolleyes:

The Establishment always get away with it. She is as guilty as hell. If you have money and influence, you could murder people and be alright.

Pro Hoc Vice

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Establishment always get away with it. She is as guilty as hell. If you have money and influence, you could murder people and be alright.

Same with Trump he got away with Raping his own wife. And in one set of depositions was caught out with 30 lies working out at more than one an hour.

A Little Pony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Establishment always get away with it. She is as guilty as hell. If you have money and influence, you could murder people and be alright.

Same with Trump he got away with Raping his own wife. And in one set of depositions was caught out with 30 lies working out at more than one an hour.

I'd still vote Trump over her.

Renegade Mechanic

I mean. Trump raped a 13 year old. It doesn't get much worse than that, in fairness. So why isn't it all over the media? He poses no more legal threat than Assange, and Far less threat than ex head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and he is one of the most despised people right now by the owners of said media?
So why the focus on things that aren't that much of a threat to his possible ascension, instead of this which would blow him out of the water immediately?

Could it be because he's not guilty? It would be far more embarrassing than all the "TREEEEEASOOOOOOON!!!!!!" calls the media had to roll back on, when in their hysteria they neglected to realise that in fact not only was it not treason, it was a treaty signed between the States and the Federation whereby the two are mandated to provide each other with mutual legal assistance in criminal matters were people/evidence of interest to one has been arrest/siezed by the other....

Or could it be because just most of the media/Hollywood/political elite are in fact filthy, kiddy fiddling peados who can't afford to expose one persons without airing the laundry of an operation of child abuse that would make the Pakistanis in Britain look like bed of roses in comparison???

If the latter is the case, it's still highly wrong, but I'll laugh at the catch 22 their sheer corruption has lead them to, nonetheless.

Pro Hoc Vice

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I mean. Trump raped a 13 year old. It doesn't get much worse than that, in fairness. So why isn't it all over the media? He poses no more legal threat than Assange, and Far less threat than ex head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and he is one of the most despised people right now by the owners of said media?
So why the focus on things that aren't that much of a threat to his possible ascension, instead of this which would blow him out of the water immediately?

Could it be because he's not guilty? It would be far more embarrassing than all the "TREEEEEASOOOOOOON!!!!!!" calls the media had to roll back on, when in their hysteria they neglected to realise that in fact not only was it not treason, it was a treaty signed between the States and the Federation whereby the two are mandated to provide each other with mutual legal assistance in criminal matters were people/evidence of interest to one has been arrest/siezed by the other....

Or could it be because just most of the media/Hollywood/political elite are in fact filthy, kiddy fiddling peados who can't afford to expose one persons without airing the laundry of an operation of child abuse that would make the Pakistanis in Britain look like bed of roses in comparison???

If the latter is the case, it's still highly wrong, but I'll laugh at the catch 22 their sheer corruption has lead them to, nonetheless.

His ex wife swore under oath that he raped her, he is on record as saying can't rape a wife, his ex wife does a big deal in divorce and says well not rape he was just not loving that time.

It seems trump and ex wife have serious issues with telling the truth. 30 times he was caught out in the depositions about the same as a good speech for him now lol.

Renegade Mechanic

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

His ex wife swore under oath that he raped her, he is on record as saying can't rape a wife, his ex wife does a big deal in divorce and says well not rape he was just not loving that time.

It seems trump and ex wife have serious issues with telling the truth. 30 times he was caught out in the depositions about the same as a good speech for him now lol.

Which is all very weird considering the friendly arrangements between them now.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204

You are right of course, in your assertion earlier that rape is no laughing matter..

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

Pro Hoc Vice

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Which is all very weird considering the friendly arrangements between them now.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204

You are right of course, in your assertion earlier that rape is no laughing matter..

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

But bad science is,

B0jangles

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Which is all very weird considering the friendly arrangements between them now.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-wife-ivana-disavows-rape-allegation/story?id=32732204

You are right of course, in your assertion earlier that rape is no laughing matter..

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

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Come on, you're just regurgitating the same aul crap that's been floating around for 30 years, try coming up with something even a litle bit original.

Mardy Bum

Clinton is arguably a very sketchy character by any measure however when you are in US politics that long and at such a high level you are going to have been involved in all sorts.

Trump however is a lunatic who appears more like a racist stand up comedian.

I have no problem with someone not voting for Hillary but anyone who votes for Trump is revealing a horrible part of themselves to the world or simply revealing their IQ.

RobertKK

CNN interviewed what they called 'Walmart Moms', women from Arizona and Columbus Ohio who shop at Walmart.
They all seemed disgusted with the choice they had. They didn't trust Hillary and didn't think Trump was capable of doing the job.
One of the women said 'it is like deciding which arm you want to cut off'.

dr.bollocko

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Clinton is arguably a very sketchy character by any measure however when you are in US politics that long and at such a high level you are going to have been involved in all sorts.

Trump however is a lunatic who appears more like a racist stand up comedian.

I have no problem with someone not voting for Hillary but anyone who votes for Trump is revealing a horrible part of themselves to the world or simply revealing their IQ.

What do you have against trumpet? He's just a little racist, sexist, lying, climate change denying, bullying, anti-vaxxing certifiable fücking madman. Like it could be worse. He could have a vagina.

Dempsey

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Clinton is arguably a very sketchy character by any measure however when you are in US politics that long and at such a high level you are going to have been involved in all sorts.

Trump however is a lunatic who appears more like a racist stand up comedian.

I have no problem with someone not voting for Hillary but anyone who votes for Trump is revealing a horrible part of themselves to the world or simply revealing their IQ.

I'd have no problem with anyone voting Trump, there are good reasons why he's getting votes. Between himself and Hilary Clinton, they are worse candidates I've ever seen in my life. They make George W. Bush look competent!

He'd actually show up American Politics for what it is these days, a sham, because the minute he tries to go off on one. You'll see where the true power of the country lies and its not in the oval office anymore.

I certainly wouldnt be going around judging other people like you would. You are revealing the horrible part of yourself with that sort of comment.

Hoop66

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

You are right of course, in your assertion earlier that rape is no laughing matter..

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

Even a cursory investigation into these claims would show you that they are, at best, grossly inflated.

So, did you post them without any checks at all (stupid), or are you being deliberately deceitful (liar)?

El_Dangeroso

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The same Reagan who referred to the Contras as "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers"? His time in the Whitehouse wasn't exactly stellar.

Lol, you'll clapback at anything! I don't think Reagan was a great president, he did lots of things that the US is still dealing with today, like chucking out a load of mentally ill people on the streets that lead to a homelessness epidemic.

I pointed it out because, to conservatives, Reagan is seen as the paragon of presidency. And if his daughter is going against Trump it shows how divisive a candidate he really is.

K-9

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

"Trump got money from the Russians!!!"

So did Hillary. And for more dangerous reason.
http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

Approving the sale of uranium for millions in payment to her.
(Even Bill got 500,000 for speaking to a Russian bank.)
Oh, wait, sorry, those millions were actually donations to her charity. The same "charity" that received tens of millions of dollars from Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and UBS.
The same "charity" that received tens of millions of dollars from China, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and the UAE.

"Well Trump lies!!!"

That's not a lie in fairness but what hasn't he lied about.
Well, he hasn't lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
He didn't lie so much he got fired from the Watergate investigation.
He didn't lie throughout his Whitewater scandal.
Nor did he lie about taking "sniper fire" when visiting the Balkans during 90s.
He didn't lie about jogging around the WTC.
He didn't lie about Benghazi.
He hasn't lied throughout his email scandal or continues to lie about it.
He hasn't lied about being broke after leaving the White House.

I know, why doesn't someone list the bad things about the Trumps and I'll list the bad things about the Clintons. We could call it Top Trumps

Trump is making himself out to be different to Hillary, not more of the same.

K-9

A Little Pony wrote: »

Clinton isn't a sociopath..

She only lies all the time and can't ever seem to tell the truth. She was against gay marriage and then was for it. She turns like the wind.

Nearly every politician was against gay marriage if you go back 10 or 20 years, even some Republicans are now for it or not that bothered.

Trump was for gay marriage, now he's against it so back to square one!

El_Duderino 09

A Little Pony wrote:

Clinton isn't a sociopath..

She only lies all the time and can't ever seem to tell the truth. She was against gay marriage and then was for it. She turns like the wind.

Whataboutery aside...

Nothing again.

It's like I keep saying. Your dislike of Clinton isn't enough to vote for Trump. You keep saying 'yeah but what about Clinton...'.

She's a politician and she has qualifications for the job. He's just a sociopath which is fine in business. You can't be serious about wanting him as president though.

You might like the racist or harsh things that he's saying now, but if he gets into office, you wont be able to help him to account for anything and he could go anything. He denies saying things that he said on camera, anyone who tries to to him to account is 'in the tank' for Hillary. Mexican judges can't be used in his case.

He's not the kind of person who should hold public office but the primary is over and it's a choice between him and Clinton. Easy

Fleawuss

It looks like Trump is going to drag down the republican ticket for House etc. It will be the best dragging down though. You know that. I know that. Hell even they know that.

A great conspiracy theory would be if really he had been manoeuvred into the position to do the dragging down.

InTheTrees

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Whataboutery aside...

Nothing again.

It's like I keep saying. Your dislike of Clinton isn't enough to vote for Trump. You keep saying 'yeah but what about Clinton...'.

Trump supporters are against gay marriage, minority voting rights, healthcare reform, etc.

But they don't want to admit it out loud because they'd have to argue the issues so instead they resort to childish finger pointing.

What do they have? Build a wall along the border, give nukes to whoever wants them and cut taxes for the rich while plunging healthcare back to the 1960's.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

CNN interviewed what they called 'Walmart Moms', women from Arizona and Columbus Ohio who shop at Walmart.
They all seemed disgusted with the choice they had. They didn't trust Hillary and didn't think Trump was capable of doing the job.
One of the women said 'it is like deciding which arm you want to cut off'.

Dissatisfaction in America is everywhere, the BBC did a great road trip podcast about Obama's years and loads of people are pissed off or not impressed with how the economy is going.

It's why Trump had a great chance of an upset, but he's throwing it away. Instead of convincing Independents he's actually turning life long Republicans against him. Everything was set up for him after the convention, it really looked like he had a chance but as the Time magazine cover put it, he's been in meltdown ever since.

The Democratic message from their convention was that you can't trust this man even on twitter so why would anybody make him President, and everything he has done since has proven the point. People used to joke that he was a great troll but he's the one getting trolled now. Hillary isn't even attacking him that much at all, she's staying out of it as much as possible because it would look unpresidential.

The Republican establishment didn't know how to deal with Trump and ended up trying to out Trump him and all the candidates let him get to them. Hillary just isn't engaging and it's the right thing to do.

PopePalpatine

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Lol, you'll clapback at anything!

You could say they'd get baited by a Tweet.

Mardy Bum

Dempsey wrote: »

I'd have no problem with anyone voting Trump, there are good reasons why he's getting votes. Between himself and Hilary Clinton, they are worse candidates I've ever seen in my life. They make George W. Bush look competent!

He'd actually show up American Politics for what it is these days, a sham, because the minute he tries to go off on one. You'll see where the true power of the country lies and its not in the oval office anymore.

I certainly wouldnt be going around judging other people like you would. You are revealing the horrible part of yourself with that sort of comment.

I hope this is a joke. Michael Healy Rae would be more competent than Trump and that is saying something.

Never mind the fact that Trump has zero qualifications for office and has been bankrupt 4 times and inherited all his money, you believe that sexism, racism, inciting violence, climate denying, narcissism are qualities that people should value and vote for? I don't see these as qualities, I would view them as horrendous character traits and anyone who supported a character like this can be considered in the same vein.

That tells you enough about a person. Judge people by their actions. If you don't judge people by their actions you are one of a tiny minority.

Renegade Mechanic

InTheTrees wrote: »

What do they have? Build a wall along the border, give nukes to whoever wants them and cut taxes for the rich while plunging healthcare back to the 1960's.

Because you should be entitled to look like this:
http://rs824.pbsrc.com/albums/zz168/kokii_jambul/Lean%20body/obeseman.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip
:rolleyes:

I'll oppose any kind of socialised healthcare, because people are too stupid and self absorbed to exercise the self responsibility required to make it work. 80% of people are going to be obese in a generation at this rate, how on earth are you going to expect the few that are working - along with the remaining 20% - to generate the taxation just so these people can continue to make billionaires out of food corporations by shovelling 6,000 calories down their throats!?

Sorry, Mrs Barry. No bed for you, Mr Thomson is on his third heart bypass..

I'm ok with paying towards Mrs Barry. 22 stone Thompson on the other hand can co **** himself...

B0jangles

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Because you should be entitled to look like this:
http://rs824.pbsrc.com/albums/zz168/kokii_jambul/Lean%20body/obeseman.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip
:rolleyes:

I'll oppose any kind of socialised healthcare, because people are too stupid and self absorbed to exercise the self responsibility required to make it work. 80% of people are going to be obese in a generation at this rate, how on earth are you going to expect the few that are working - along with the remaining 20% - to generate the taxation just so these people can continue to make billionaires out of food corporations by shovelling 6,000 calories down their throats!?

Sorry, Mrs Barry. No bed for you, Mr Thomson is on his third heart bypass..

I'm ok with paying towards Mrs Barry. 22 stone Thompson on the other hand can co **** himself...

The US government spends vastly more per person on healthcare than any other country despite the lack of socialized healthcare.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html

The U.S. spent an average of $9,086 per person on health care in 2013, which translated to more than 17 percent of gross domestic product, the fund noted. That level of health spending relative to GDP is about 50 percent more than any of the countries studied for the report, which are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
The Commonwealth Fund said that in the U.S., the life expectancy in 2013 was an average of 78.8 years. By contrast, in Switzerland, which had the second-highest health spending per capita at $6,325, life expectancy was more than four years higher, at 82.9 years.
U.S. spending on government-sponsored health care was also significantly higher per capita than the other countries, "despite being the only country in the study without universal health coverage," the Commonwealth Fund said."

This is what happens when you treat medical care as an opportunity to turn a profit instead of a basic human need.

Christy42

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Because you should be entitled to look like this:
http://rs824.pbsrc.com/albums/zz168/kokii_jambul/Lean%20body/obeseman.jpg?w=480&h=480&fit=clip
:rolleyes:

I'll oppose any kind of socialised healthcare, because people are too stupid and self absorbed to exercise the self responsibility required to make it work. 80% of people are going to be obese in a generation at this rate, how on earth are you going to expect the few that are working - along with the remaining 20% - to generate the taxation just so these people can continue to make billionaires out of food corporations by shovelling 6,000 calories down their throats!?

Sorry, Mrs Barry. No bed for you, Mr Thomson is on his third heart bypass..

I'm ok with paying towards Mrs Barry. 22 stone Thompson on the other hand can co **** himself...

Sure look at Canada or Europe with their 3rd world health systems.

You are also saying you aren't bothered helping some poor kid fight cancer.

Treating human beings with decency and not just allowing them to die when you can stop is how we create a civilised society.

Renegade Mechanic

B0jangles wrote: »

The US government spends vastly more per person on healthcare than any other country despite the lack of socialized healthcare.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/08/us-health-care-spending-is-high-results-arenot-so-good.html




This is what happens when you treat medical care as an opportunity to turn a profit instead of a basic human need.

And it's only going to get much worse. Shoving more of the coming cost on to people isn't going to work any more than forcing down the amount healthcare professionals can charge - causing skilled workers to leave while the remainder races to the bottom...

People are just going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves..

Christy42 wrote: »

Sure look at Canada or Europe with their 3rd world health systems.

You are also saying you aren't bothered helping some poor kid fight cancer.

Treating human beings with decency and not just allowing them to die when you can stop is how we create a civilised society.

I quite literally stated I was ok with paying for Mrs Barrys ailment. I should have stated they were ailments beyond her control, kidney removal, cancer, etc etc. Mr Thomson however made a choice to wind up weighing enough to kill himself. He should be allowed to do so.

B0jangles

Dude, you clearly know zip about the American healthcare system - it's a for-profit disaster for everyone (except the hospital shareholders of course):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/hospital-prices-cost-differences_n_3232678.html

When a patient arrives at Bayonne Hospital Center in New Jersey requiring treatment for the respiratory ailment known as COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, she faces an official price tag of $99,690.

Less than 30 miles away in the Bronx, N.Y., the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center charges only $7,044 for the same treatment, according to a massive federal database of national health care costs made public on Wednesday.

Americans have long become accustomed to bewilderment and anxiety when confronting health care bills. The new database underscores why, revealing the perplexing assortment of prices for medical care, with the details of bills seemingly untethered to any graspable principle.

Even within the same metropolitan area, hospitals charge prices that differ by staggering degrees for the same procedures. People without health insurance pay vastly higher costs for care when less expensive options are often available nearby. Virtually everyone who seeks health care winds up paying inflated prices in one form or another as these stark disparities in price sow inefficiencies throughout the market.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/10/we-need-full-transparency-for-hospital-chargemaster-prices-heres-why.html

If she had been eligible for Medicare, the hospital would have charged the government $10,000 for the services it provided to her, with Medicare picking up most of the tab. But lacking insurance, she was billed directly from the hospital, and not for a mere $10,000. The total charge: $120,000!

That 1,200 percent markup is extreme. But out of the 50 U.S. hospitals with the largest price markups, 49 are for-profit institutions, marking up charges 9 to 12 times above what Medicare would pay. That is the conclusion drawn in a recent study published in Health Affairs. The U.S. hospital industry has a price problem. And as it turns out, that problem is especially problematic at some of our largest for-profit hospital chains.

Christy42

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

And it's only going to get much worse. Shoving more of the coming cost on to people isn't going to work any more than forcing down the amount healthcare professionals can charge - causing skilled workers to leave while the remainder races to the bottom...

People are just going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves..


I quite literally stated I was ok with paying for Mrs Barrys ailment. I should have stated they were ailments beyond her control, kidney removal, cancer, etc etc. Mr Thomson however made a choice to wind up weighing enough to kill himself. He should be allowed to do so.

No you say you have no issue with it but in the end your policies will end up not paying for it.

Figuring out what is whose fault seems like a area fraught with issues. What if Mr. Thomson gets something unrelated to his weight? What if an ailment is partially or potentially down to lifestyle. What if I eat a bit more red meat than I should and get cancer?

Treat them all. Once you come up with a fool proof standard that works in every case we can discuss limiting it. Until then treating no one is a cop out.

Dempsey

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I hope this is a joke. Michael Healy Rae would be more competent than Trump and that is saying something.

Never mind the fact that Trump has zero qualifications for office and has been bankrupt 4 times and inherited all his money, you believe that sexism, racism, inciting violence, climate denying, narcissism are qualities that people should value and vote for? I don't see these as qualities, I would view them as horrendous character traits and anyone who supported a character like this can be considered in the same vein.

That tells you enough about a person. Judge people by their actions. If you don't judge people by their actions you are one of a tiny minority.

Try reading my post properly instead of projecting your strawman argument tripe

PopePalpatine

Out of curiosity, I looked up rates of adult obesity in each US state, then party affiliation in each state, and finally how many voted for Romney in 2012.

State|% of adults who are obese|% of voters who are Republicans vs Democrats|Support for Romney in 2012
Arkansas|35.9|46-38|60.57
West Virginia|35.7|43-41|62.30
Mississippi|35.5|44-42|55.29
Louisiana|34.9|41-43|57.78
Alabama|33.5|52-35|60.55
Oklahoma|33|45-40|66.77
Indiana|32.7|42-37|54.13
Ohio|32.6|42-40|47.69
N. Dakota|32.2|50-33|58.32
S. Carolina|32.1|43-39|54.56

In all of the above states accept Louisiana, the Republicans are the most-affiliated-with party, with majorities in two states. Romney won all of those states except Ohio.