Donald Trump

Billy86

Now if we really want to talk about shady financial connections to other countries, well... Trump's campaign chief Paul Manafort has ridiculously close ties to Russia, and today the NYT reported on $12.7mn worth of bribes and dodgy money he took while involved in Putin's Ukranian puppet government before their uprising.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=1

And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.

Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.

Trump is looking more and more like a puppet of Putin's every single day, which explains why he feels to need to lie about how much he and good old cousin Vlad know each other.

Foxtrol

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Look at the end of the day, if Hillary was genuine in her horse **** about "making the elite pay their share", the elite wouldn't be ****ing backing her....

At least Trump is telling the truth when he doesn't say he's going to make their lives harder by taxing them more - in fact he outright says they'll be left alone. But they have all the money they'll ever need. What they want more of now is control. Not only is Hillary talking through her arse about "making them pay" (you have to be a moron to believe that. Just look what happened to Socialist Sanders, who actually would have made the elite's lives harder...) she will be the one leading to their huge increases in control.

Once again, if Hillary was going to make them pay, they would not back her. It does not matter what Donald Gob does. As long as crowds like Goldman Sachs and Saudi Arabia (and just way too many more on that level to list, but not common plebs like me or you - we don't actually matter..) hate him, I will like the ****. As long as they like Hillary, I'll hate her.

I’d say I’ve responded to posts making this claim a dozen times in this thread, only for it to be ignored and the same claim posted again once a Trump supporter backs themselves into a corner.

The big donors are supporting Hillary because the market thrives on stability and certainty and Trump sees it as a badge of honour that he is neither. The ‘elites’ you speak of don’t have their money sitting in a savings accounts, it’s all invested. The risk that Hillary makes them pay a small increase in tax (which they’ll likely find a way around) is much less than the guarantee of the US market falling dramatically if Trump is elected (far worse than anything seen post Brexit). These people aren't stupid and wont cut their nose to spite their face, as they see Trump as the danger he truly is.

Penn

I think the only thing that can save Trump's campaign now is if he releases his tax returns and proves how honest he truly is. They'll show he really is as wealthy as he says, pays the proper amount of tax and has no ties to off-shore and particularly Russian interests.

I'm sure he's just finalising the last part to make sure it's all in order and he'll release his tax returns right when Hilary least expects it. That'll shut all the dishonest media up too.

Go Don! Put all the rumours to rest and show you have nothing to hide!

CMOTDibbler

Penn wrote: »

Go Don! Put all the rumours to rest and show you have nothing to hide!

Some say that it is nothing that he's trying to hide.

Samaris

"The latest proposal will also include creating an ideological test for immigrants entering the country, with questions addressing how each applicant views American values such as religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights." - http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37086578

Including the link and quote there in case anyone can give a more definite quote, but what does this mean exactly...?

The USA is divided on all three of those topics. Although the cheek of his questionnaire including "American values such as religious freedom", when he's also planning on preventing Muslims entering based on their religion..?!

So, what are the "right" answers to these questions? Assuming Trump is in power, and using a litmus test of what he's been promising on these fronts.

Religious Freedom:
- A complete ban on Muslims entering the US (Dec. 08, July 25th)
- Banning of non-Christians from countries with a "terrorist footprint" (July 25th, combined with the CBN below)
- Closure of "some" mosques (Nov 18th) and heavy surveillance of mosques (Jun 13th)
- Department store workers will have to use the phrase "Merry Christmas" (jesus, you can run for president with such a silly platform?) (July 19th)
- Tax-free religious organisations shall be allowed to participate in politics (July 19th)
- Undisclosed "greater freedom" for evangelical Christians. (July 19th)
- Allow European and Middle Eastern Christians to come to the US (supposedly they're not allowed into the US. Yes, yes they are, but okay)(can't get the date on that - interview with CBN TV, a Christian channel)
- Greater representation for oppressed American Christians. (see CBN TV)

Gender equality
Difficult one, it doesn't tend to come up in debate. I dunno, maybe "so long as there's not blood coming out of their wherevers" would do it?

Gay rights
Against same-sex marriage (Feb 2nd) (well, depends on the day. He'll appoint judges pro-"traditional" marriage (July 2016), he condemned the Supreme Court decision to legalise ssm (Jun 26th). Has flip-flopped a bit on this issue though.
Anti-"bathroom legislation" - feels people should be able to use whatever damn bathroom they like. (Apr 21st)
(Edit: Update a couple of weeks later, now feels it should be a state issue. Not found a personal quote from him on that since.)
Legalisation of discrimination against gay people based on religious mores (Mike Pence signed the "religious freedom" bill in Indiana, which has been condemned as legalised discrimination against gay people). Supports the "First Amendment Defense Act" (afaik, basically the same).

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

- Undisclosed "greater freedom" for evangelical Christians. (July 19th)

...

Legalisation of discrimination against gay people based on religious mores (Mike Pence signed the "religious freedom" bill in Indiana, which has been condemned as legalised discrimination against gay people). Supports the "First Amendment Defense Act" (afaik, basically the same).

Hhmmm...

KingBrian2

SeantoBarry wrote: »

Laughable comparison. The guy is the Islamic terrorists father and has some pretty extreme views himself.

The people who keep slating Trump are extraordinarily misinformed they compare Donald Trump to ISIS. A totally unfounded allegation, he is running for high office not encouraging people to fight in a war, any war including border skirmishes with Mexico or armed conflict with Russia.

Decent Skin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The people who keep slating Trump are extraordinarily misinformed they compare Donald Trump to ISIS. A totally unfounded allegation, he is running for high office not encouraging people to fight in a war, any war including border skirmishes with Mexico or armed conflict with Russia.

What "people" are those ?

Because claiming that I'm "extraordinarily misinformed" is a pretty mental stretch considering the misinformed post of yours that I replied to.

But maybe you're referring to others who comment on his psychotic and paranoid behaviour, or those who query his "successful businessman" persona when so many of his companies have gone into bankruptcy.

Then again, those would be pretty informed comments too.

So who are you referring to ?

KingBrian2

Decent Skin wrote: »

What "people" are those ?

Because claiming that I'm "extraordinarily misinformed" is a pretty mental stretch considering the misinformed post of yours that I replied to.

But maybe you're referring to others who comment on his psychotic and paranoid behaviour, or those who query his "successful businessman" persona when so many of his companies have gone into bankruptcy.

Then again, those would be pretty informed comments too.

So who are you referring to ?

Those who have been paid to write articles to slam Donald Trump. The various social media outlets that have become outraged at mere words uttered by Mr Trump, taking his sentences out of context. The apologists for the extreme Jihadists.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those who have been paid to write articles to slam Donald Trump. The various social media outlets that have become outraged at mere words uttered by Mr Trump, taking his sentences out of context. The apologists for the extreme Jihadists.

This reminds me of the Outrage felt by right wingers in 2008 when Sarah Palin was so unfairly attacked by the press when they asked her if she ever read any newspapers.

Samaris

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those who have been paid to write articles to slam Donald Trump. The various social media outlets that have become outraged at mere words uttered by Mr Trump, taking his sentences out of context. The apologists for the extreme Jihadists.

Well, they tend to be very cruelly and unfairly quoting him absolutely in context, often linking entire portions of his speeches.

It's harsh, but honestly, they couldn't make the **** up otherwise. Sometimes, you just have to let a man eat his own head in public and then comment on it rather than bother making up stories.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those who have been paid to write articles to slam Donald Trump. The various social media outlets that have become outraged at mere words uttered by Mr Trump, taking his sentences out of context. The apologists for the extreme Jihadists.

I'm fascinated by this. Please tell me more about these apologists for extreme jihadists and why they like said extreme jihadists.

I clearly lead a sheltered life.

KingBrian2

Samaris wrote: »

Well, they tend to be very cruelly and unfairly quoting him absolutely in context, often linking entire portions of his speeches.

It's harsh, but honestly, they couldn't make the **** up otherwise. Sometimes, you just have to let a man eat his own head in public and then comment on it rather than bother making up stories.

So you stand by the allegation that he said Mexicans are rapists and murders when his full sentence mentioned that not all Mexicans are rapists and murders. You have us believe Trump is rabid racist. If you look at Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico & Texas millions of Mexicans are crossing the border many of them illegally and we are asked to defend these people. The US can't build a relationship with Mexico if the media continues to ignore that with huge inflows of Hispanics entering the US a serious social crisis will be experienced.

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

Well, they tend to be very cruelly and unfairly quoting him absolutely in context, often linking entire portions of his speeches.

It's harsh, but honestly, they couldn't make the **** up otherwise. Sometimes, you just have to let a man eat his own head in public and then comment on it rather than bother making up stories.

Look at this, the media are such meanies, such bullies, to be printing this. I mean, look at how 'gotcha!' those questions are, it's just disgusting

Hewitt: Last night, you said the president was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

Trump: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

Hewitt: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.

Trump: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, OK? . . .

Hewitt: I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.

Trump: Well, I disagree.

Hewitt: All right, that’s OK.

Trump: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.

Hewitt: That’s—

Trump: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.

Hewitt: That’s true.

Trump: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

Clearly Hugh Hewitt is a liberal conspirator, dedicated in his mission to see Hillary Clinton become president. It's so obvious that he even felt like he needed to throw up some smoke and mirrors by endorsing Trump on account of how much he "hates" the Clintons. But we can all see through that... the fraud probably even believes crazy stuff, like asking Russia to hack the US government or calling for the banning of all Muslims from the US are bad ideas, or implying you have never met a good person from Mexico.






EDIT: For anyone curious, ISIS were initially founded in 1999 and in 2006 (e.g. 2-3 two years before Obama took office, and when he had only been a senator for a year) changed their name to Islamic State, as we know them today.

jimmycrackcorm

20Cent wrote:

I remember the first Sarah Palin debate. After the rules were read out she basically said she didn't care about the questions just wanted to speak directly to the folks at home. Could see trump doing the same. Ignore the format of the debate and just say what he wants. Clinton just needs to wind him up and he'll do yet another mad rant. His supporters will love it be moderates and undecided people won't.

I'm busy waiting to see Clinton wind him up that he will straight out say he would push the big red nuclear button...

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Look at this, the media are such meanies, such bullies, to be printing this. I mean, look at how 'gotcha!' those questions are, it's just disgusting



Clearly Hugh Hewitt is a liberal conspirator, dedicated in his mission to see Hillary Clinton become president. It's so obvious that he even felt like he needed to throw up some smoke and mirrors by endorsing Trump on account of how much he "hates" the Clintons. But we can all see through that... the fraud probably even believes crazy stuff, like asking Russia to hack the US government or calling for the banning of all Muslims from the US are bad ideas, or implying you have never met a good person from Mexico.

The US set the dangerous precedent of paying the sunni militia to fight for their cause in Iraq. The start of a slippery slope of aiding Jihadi organizations. What Iraq needed was a strong police force preferable one free of sectarianism.

jimmycrackcorm

KingBrian2 wrote:

The people who keep slating Trump are extraordinarily misinformed they compare Donald Trump to ISIS. A totally unfounded allegation, he is running for high office not encouraging people to fight in a war, any war including border skirmishes with Mexico or armed conflict with Russia.

Any informed person would rightly conclude that Isis want to create a gulf between Muslims and non Muslims so that they should have to choose the side of Islam. Trump feeds directly into that by accepting and arguing for that when he says he wants to ban them from America.

He is a poster boy for Isis to tell Muslims that they're all welcome to the only place where people don't hate them. Welcome to the caliphate and your sharia order.

Billy86

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Any informed person would rightly conclude that Isis want to create a gulf between Muslims and non Muslims so that they should have to choose the side of Islam. Trump feeds directly into that by accepting and arguing for that when he says he wants to ban them from America.

He is a poster boy for Isis to tell Muslims that they're all welcome to the only place where people don't hate them. Welcome to the caliphate and your sharia order.

Yep, I reckon the biggest threat to either candidate's life right now (outside of lone acting lunatics) is ISIS trying to kill Hillary so they can have a Trump presidency. Then again, they prefer to go for lesser 'targets' to have a better 'success rate' from what I've gathered, so hardly that likely.

But Trump as president would be great news for Islamic extremism.

KingBrian2

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Any informed person would rightly conclude that Isis want to create a gulf between Muslims and non Muslims so that they should have to choose the side of Islam. Trump feeds directly into that by accepting and arguing for that when he says he wants to ban them from America.

He is a poster boy for Isis to tell Muslims that they're all welcome to the only place where people don't hate them. Welcome to the caliphate and your sharia order.

That is a ridiculous argument Trump has been saying it as it is while others have be bleeping like sheep that Iran poses the greatest threat to the world. The sunnis have been committing most of the atrocities and their supporters in the Gulf have been aiding them. This is an undisputed fact.

wes

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The US set the dangerous precedent of paying the sunni militia to fight for their cause in Iraq. The start of a slippery slope of aiding Jihadi organizations. What Iraq needed was a strong police force preferable one free of sectarianism.

The start........................

What was that business with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan? Backing the nun raping contras terror campaign and so and so forth. Backing dodgy characters is timed honoured tradition the world over.

Decent Skin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The US set the dangerous precedent of paying the sunni militia to fight for their cause in Iraq. The start of a slippery slope of aiding Jihadi organizations. What Iraq needed was a strong police force preferable one free of sectarianism.

The US installed Saddam Hussein and then, when he wanted to sell oil in euro, manufactured an invasion, splitting the country.

All long before Osama Bin Obama took office.

Do give us a few examples of his recent statements and what he "really meant", though; the guy appears to be even more brainless and tactless than Bush Jnr - remember him? The guy who actually started the "war" that you're happy to blame Obama for ? - and that's some achievement.

Edit: although the facts are pretty clear : his "Obama founded ISIS" is an outright lie (one of many) since in order to "aid Jihadi organisations" said organisations need to exist beforehand.

So even if you are correct in what you claim re "aid", Trump is still a lying, dirty-politics, zero-substance, dangerous prick.

Penn

Decent Skin wrote: »

So even if you are correct in what you claim re "aid", Trump is still a lying, dirty-politics, zero-substance, dangerous prick.

Hey! He may be a lying, dirty-politics, zero-substance, dangerous prick, but at least he had the balls to release his tax returns and prove there's nothing dodgy in them!

What's that? He still refuses to release his tax returns? Oh. In that case, never mind...

ScumLord

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The US set the dangerous precedent of paying the sunni militia to fight for their cause in Iraq.

The US didn't set that precedent, that's been how conquerors have always done it. Either you manage the locals yourself, pay their enemies (divide and conquer) or just leave them to rot.

KingBrian2

The Iraqi's have had to put up with Saddam Hussein, the Americans and now ISIS. They have been through a lot of terrifying experiences. The Syrians and Iraqi's have my deepest sympathies in their hour of need and the resulting crushing of those aligned against them.

KingBrian2

Sectarianism has actually increased since President Obama was elected for his second term in office. Hostility towards all religion has grown and the inevitable racism that accompanies such vile beliefs. Not only do we have religion on religion antagonism we also have feuds between atheists & devout people. A Rhodesian sporting terrorist targeting a Black Church in the southern states. Sectarianism has grown and grown becoming undistinguishable to parts of the developing world. It is this climate of sectarianism that we see the Jihadi cells being fueled around the world.

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Sectarianism has actually increased since President Obama was elected for his second term in office. Hostility towards all religion has grown and the inevitable racism that accompanies such vile beliefs. Not only do we have religion on religion antagonism we also have feuds between atheists & devout people. A Rhodesian sporting terrorist targeting a Black Church in the southern states. Sectarianism has grown and grown becoming undistinguishable to parts of the developing world. It is this climate of sectarianism that we see the Jihadi cells being fueled around the world.

I know this is a mortal sin in the Church of Drumpf, but stop digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Oh, and something tells me the team of Drumpf and Pence aren't the best choice for solving this sectarian climate you describe.

Foxtrol

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Sectarianism has actually increased since President Obama was elected for his second term in office. Hostility towards all religion has grown and the inevitable racism that accompanies such vile beliefs. Not only do we have religion on religion antagonism we also have feuds between atheists & devout people. A Rhodesian sporting terrorist targeting a Black Church in the southern states. Sectarianism has grown and grown becoming undistinguishable to parts of the developing world. It is this climate of sectarianism that we see the Jihadi cells being fueled around the world.

Because the obvious policy to calm sectarian hostility/tension is to announce that you want to ban one religion from entering the country. :rolleyes:

KingBrian2

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because the obvious policy to calm sectarian hostility/tension is to announce that you want to ban one religion from entering the country. :rolleyes:

Extreme sectarianism as opposed to secularists and co-religionists which has been allowed to operate in America for decades.

Billy86

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because the obvious policy to calm sectarian hostility/tension is to announce that you want to ban one religion from entering the country. :rolleyes:

Nah, according to Brian he only wants to ban the extremists because that is what he meant by 'Muslims', not actually 'Muslims' but 'extremists'... because according to Brian you should not lump all Muslims in together, and he feels Donald Trump has the exact same opinion.

Until later when Trump meant 'Muslims' because, as per Brian (yes, the same Brian), America has 'a Muslim problem'.

Whether Brian actually believes what he types (as in simultaneously believes two completely contradictory things he said) or not is up for you to decide.

KingBrian2

Even liberal democrats admit America has issues with radical Islamic preachers in America. Salafi Wahhabi beliefs have been gaining ground in Mosques across America. It is by no means confined to America. Australia, Europe even in South East Asia and Africa they have radical clerics preaching hatred.